The Impact of Advance Care Planning on Healthcare Professionals' Well-being: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Advance care planning (ACP) improves care for patients with chronic illnesses and reduces family stress. However, the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature evaluating the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being. METHODS: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic reviews and registered the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42022346354). We included primary studies in all languages that assessed the well-being of healthcare professionals in ACP interventions. We excluded any studies on ACP in psychiatric care and in palliative care that did not address goals of care. Searches were conducted on April 4, 2022, and March 6, 2023 in Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality analysis. We present results as a narrative synthesis because of their heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 21 articles published in English between 1997 and 2021 with 17 published after 2019. All were conducted in high-income countries, and they involved a total of 1278 participants. Three reported an interprofessional intervention and two included patient partners. Studies had significant methodological flaws but most reported that ACP had a possible positive impact on healthcare professionals' well-being. CONCLUSION: This review is the first to explore the impact of ACP interventions on healthcare professionals' well-being. ACP interventions appear to have a positive impact, but high-quality studies are scarce. Further research is needed, particularly using more rigorous and systematic methods to implement interventions and report results.

Validation of Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Trauma Care.

Importance: Reducing low-value care has the potential to improve patient experiences and outcomes and free up health care resources. Sixteen quality indicators were recently developed targeting reductions in low-value trauma care based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, expert consensus, and patient preferences. Objective: To assess the validity of quality indicators on low-value trauma care using trauma registry data. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from an inclusive Canadian provincial trauma system were used in this analysis. Included were all admissions for injury to any of the 57 provincial adult trauma centers between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2020. Metrics for quality indicators were developed iteratively with clinical experts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity was assessed using a priori criteria based on 5 parameters: frequency (incidence and case volume), discrimination (interhospital variation), construct validity (correlation with quality indicators on high-value care), predictive validity (correlation with quality indicators on risk-adjusted outcomes), and forecasting (correlation over time). Results: The study sample included 136 783 patient admissions (mean [SD] age, 63 [22] years; 68 428 men [50%]). Metrics were developed for 12 of the 16 quality indicators. Six quality indicators showed moderate or high validity on all measurable parameters: initial head, cervical spine, or whole-body computed tomography for low-risk patients; posttransfer repeated computed tomography; neurosurgical consultation for mild complicated traumatic brain injury; and spine service consultation for isolated thoracolumbar process fractures. Red blood cell transfusion in low-risk patients had low frequency but had moderate or high validity on all other parameters. Five quality indicators had low validity on at least 2 parameters: repeated head CT and intensive care unit admission for mild complicated traumatic brain injury, hospital admission for minor blunt abdominal trauma, orthosis for thoracolumbar burst fractures, and surgical exploration in penetrating neck injury without hard signs. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study shows the feasibility of assessing low-value trauma care using routinely collected data. It provided data on quality indicators properties that can be used to decide which quality indicators are most appropriate in a given system. Results suggest that 6 quality indicators have moderate to high validity. Their implementation now needs to be tested.

Quality Indicators Targeting Low-Value Clinical Practices in Trauma Care.

Importance: The use of quality indicators has been shown to improve injury care processes and outcomes. However, trauma quality indicators proposed to date exclusively target the underuse of recommended practices. Initiatives such as Choosing Wisely publish lists of practices to be questioned, but few apply to trauma care, and most have not successfully been translated to quality indicators. Objective: To develop a set of evidence and patient-informed, consensus-based quality indicators targeting reductions in low-value clinical practices in acute, in-hospital trauma care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-round Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) consensus study, conducted from April 20 to June 9, 2021, comprised an online questionnaire and a virtual workshop led by 2 independent moderators. Two panels of international experts from Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK, and local stakeholders from Québec, Canada, represented key clinical expertise involved in trauma care and included 3 patient partners. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists were asked to rate 50 practices on a 7-point Likert scale according to 4 quality indicator criteria: importance, supporting evidence, actionability, and measurability. Results: Of 49 eligible experts approached, 46 (94%; 18 experts [39%] aged ≥50 years; 37 men [80%]) completed at least 1 round and 36 (73%) completed both rounds. Eleven quality indicators were selected overall, 2 more were selected by the international panel and a further 3 by the local stakeholder panel. Selected indicators targeted low-value clinical practices in the following aspects of trauma care: (1) initial diagnostic imaging (head, cervical spine, ankle, and pelvis), (2) repeated diagnostic imaging (posttransfer computed tomography [CT] and repeated head CT), (3) consultation (neurosurgical and spine), (4) surgery (penetrating neck injury), (5) blood product administration, (6) medication (antibiotic prophylaxis and late seizure prophylaxis), (7) trauma service admission (blunt abdominal trauma), (8) intensive care unit admission (mild complicated traumatic brain injury), and (9) routine blood work (minor orthopedic surgery). Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus study, a set of consensus-based quality indicators were developed that were informed by the best available evidence and patient priorities, targeting low-value trauma care. Selected indicators represented a trauma-specific list of practices, the use of which should be questioned. Trauma quality programs in high-income countries may use these study results as a basis to select context-specific quality indicators to measure and reduce low-value care.

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: A scoping review and expert consultation survey.

BACKGROUND: Tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and could expose patients to unnecessary harm, referred to here as low-value clinical practices, consume up to 30% of health care resources. Choosing Wisely and other organizations have published lists of clinical practices to be avoided. However, few apply to injury and most are based uniquely on expert consensus. We aimed to identify low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting articles, reviews and guidelines that identified low-value clinical practices specific to injury populations. Thirty-six experts rated clinical practices on a five-point Likert scale from clearly low value to clearly beneficial. Clinical practices reported as low value by at least one level I, II, or III study and considered clearly or potentially low-value by at least 75% of experts were retained as candidates for low-value injury care. RESULTS: Of 50,695 citations, 815 studies were included and led to the identification of 150 clinical practices. Of these, 63 were considered candidates for low-value injury care; 33 in the emergency room, 9 in trauma surgery, 15 in the intensive care unit, and 5 in orthopedics. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which did not meet our criteria for low-value care. CONCLUSION: We identified 63 low-value clinical practices in acute injury care that are supported by empirical evidence and expert opinion. Conditional on future research, they represent potential targets for guidelines, overuse metrics and de-implementation interventions. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which may be interesting targets for value-based decision-making. Our study represents an important step toward the deimplementation of low-value clinical practices in injury care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, Level IV.

Milestones, barriers and beacons: Shared decision making in Canada inches ahead.

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) remains as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans - ten provincial, three territorial and one federal. The healthcare research funding environment has been largely positive for SDM because there was funding for knowledge translation research which also encompassed SDM. The funding climate currently places new emphasis on patient involvement in research and on patient empowerment in healthcare. SDM fields have expanded from primary care to elder care, paediatrics, emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, nutrition, occupational therapy and workplace rehabilitation. Also, SDM has reached out to embrace other health-related decisions including about home care and social care and has been adapted to Aboriginal decision making needs. Canadian researchers have developed new interprofessional SDM models that are being used worldwide. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but there are provincial initiatives in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Decision aids are routinely used in some areas, for example for prostate cancer in Saskatchewan, and many others are available for online consultation. The Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario maintains an international inventory of decision aids appraised with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The Canada Research Chair in SDM and Knowledge Translation in Quebec City maintains a website of SDM training programs available worldwide. These initiatives are positive, but the future of SDM in Canada depends on whether health policies, health professionals and the public culture fully embrace it.

Myocardial Infarction as a Complication of Bronchial Artery Embolization.

Bronchial artery embolization is now a common treatment for massive pulmonary hemoptysis if flexible bronchoscopy at the bedside failed to control the bleeding. Complications of this technique range from benign chest pain to devastating neurological impairments. We report the case of a 41-year-old man who developed an ST elevation myocardial infarction during bronchial artery embolization, presumably because of coronary embolism by injected particles. In this patient who had no previously known coronary artery disease, we retrospectively found a communication between the left bronchial artery and the circumflex coronary artery. This fistula was not visible on the initial angiographic view and likely opened because of the hemodynamic changes resulting from the embolization. This case advocates for careful search for bronchial-to-coronary arterial fistulas and the need for repeated angiographic views during embolization procedures.

Clinical outcomes, predictors, and prevalence of anterior pituitary disorders following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical outcomes, predictors, and prevalence of anterior pituitary disorders following traumatic brain injury. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Registry, BIOSIS, and Trip Database up to February 2012 and consulted bibliographies of narrative reviews and selected articles. STUDY SELECTION: We included cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies and randomized trials enrolling at least five adults with blunt traumatic brain injury in whom at least one anterior pituitary axis was assessed. We excluded case series and studies in which other neurological conditions were indistinguishable from traumatic brain injury. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers selected citations, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using a standardized form. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed meta-analyses using random effect models and assessed heterogeneity using the I index. RESULTS: We included 66 studies (5,386 patients) evaluating prevalence, 14 evaluating clinical outcomes, and 27 evaluating predictors. Thirty studies were at low risk of bias. Anterior pituitary disorders were associated with a trend toward increased ICU mortality (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.99-3.21; four studies) and no difference in Glasgow Outcome Scale score (mean difference, -0.45; 95% CI, -1.10 to 0.20; three studies). Age (mean difference, 3.19; 95% CI, 0.31-6.08; 19 studies), traumatic brain injury severity (risk ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.20-3.86 for patients with severe vs nonsevere traumatic brain injury; seven studies), and skull fractures (risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.03-2.91; six studies) predicted anterior pituitary disorders. Over the long term, 31.6% (95% CI, 23.6-40.1%; 27 studies) of patients had at least one anterior pituitary disorder. We observed significant heterogeneity that was not solely explained by the risk of bias or traumatic brain injury severity. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of traumatic brain injury patients have persistent anterior pituitary disorder. Older age, traumatic brain injury severity, and skull fractures predict anterior pituitary disorders, which in turn may be associated with higher ICU mortality. Further high-quality studies are warranted to better define the burden of anterior pituitary disorders and to identify high-risk patients.

GATA-1 associates with and inhibits p53.

In addition to orchestrating the expression of all erythroid-specific genes, GATA-1 controls the growth, differentiation, and survival of the erythroid lineage through the regulation of genes that manipulate the cell cycle and apoptosis. The stages of mammalian erythropoiesis include global gene inactivation, nuclear condensation, and enucleation to yield circulating erythrocytes, and some of the genes whose expression are altered by GATA-1 during this process are members of the p53 pathway. In this study, we demonstrate a specific in vitro interaction between the transactivation domain of p53 (p53TAD) and a segment of the GATA-1 DNA-binding domain that includes the carboxyl-terminal zinc-finger domain. We also show by immunoprecipitation that the native GATA-1 and p53 interact in erythroid cells and that activation of p53-responsive promoters in an erythroid cell line can be inhibited by the overexpression of GATA-1. Mutational analysis reveals that GATA-1 inhibition of p53 minimally requires the segment of the GATA-1 DNA-binding domain that interacts with p53TAD. This inhibition is reciprocal, as the activation of a GATA-1-responsive promoter can be inhibited by p53. Based on these findings, we conclude that inhibition of the p53 pathway by GATA-1 may be essential for erythroid cell development and survival.