Emergency Nurses' Perceived Barriers and Solutions to Engaging Patients With Life-Limiting Illnesses in Serious Illness Conversations: A United States Multicenter Mixed-Method Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess emergency nurses' perceived barriers toward engaging patients in serious illness conversations. METHODS: Using a mixed-method (quant + QUAL) convergent design, we pooled data on the emergency nurses who underwent the End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium training across 33 emergency departments. Data were extracted from the End-of-Life Nursing Education Consortium post-training questionnaire, comprising a 5-item survey and 1 open-ended question. Our quantitative analysis employed a cross-sectional design to assess the proportion of emergency nurses who report that they will encounter barriers in engaging seriously ill patients in serious illness conversations in the emergency department. Our qualitative analysis used conceptual content analysis to generate themes and meaning units of the perceived barriers and possible solutions toward having serious illness conversations in the emergency department. RESULTS: A total of 2176 emergency nurses responded to the survey. Results from the quantitative analysis showed that 1473 (67.7%) emergency nurses reported that they will encounter barriers while engaging in serious illness conversations. Three thematic barriers-human factors, time constraints, and challenges in the emergency department work environment-emerged from the content analysis. Some of the subthemes included the perceived difficulty of serious illness conversations, delay in daily throughput, and lack of privacy in the emergency department. The potential solutions extracted included the need for continued training, the provision of dedicated emergency nurses to handle serious illness conversations, and the creation of dedicated spaces for serious illness conversations. DISCUSSION: Emergency nurses may encounter barriers while engaging in serious illness conversations. Institutional-level policies may be required in creating a palliative care-friendly emergency department work environment.

Serious Illness Communication Skills Training for Emergency Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers: A Multi-Method Assessment of the Reach and Effectiveness of the Intervention.

Background: EM Talk is a communication skills training program designed to improve emergency providers' serious illness conversational skills. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this study aims to assess the reach of EM Talk and its effectiveness. Methods: EM Talk is one of the components of Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (EM) intervention. It consisted of one 4-hour training session during which professional actors used role-plays and active learning to train providers to deliver serious/bad news, express empathy, explore patients' goals, and formulate care plans. After the training, emergency providers filled out an optional post-intervention survey, which included course reflections. Using a multi-method analytical approach, we analyzed the reach of the intervention quantitatively and the effectiveness of the intervention qualitatively using conceptual content analysis of open-ended responses. Results: A total of 879 out of 1,029 (85%) EM providers across 33 emergency departments completed the EM Talk training, with the training rate ranging from 63-100%. From the 326 reflections, we identified meaning units across the thematic domains of improved knowledge, attitude, and practice. The main subthemes across the three domains were the acquisition of discussion tips and tricks, improved attitude toward engaging qualifying patients in serious illness (SI) conversations, and commitment to using these learned skills in clinical practice. Conclusion: Effectively engaging qualifying patients in serious illness conversations requires appropriate communication skills. EM Talk has the potential to improve emergency providers' knowledge, attitude, and practice of SI communication skills. Trial registration: NCT03424109.

Factors Related to Self-Reported Distress Experienced by Physicians During Their First COVID-19 Triage Decisions.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with distress experienced by physicians during their first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) triage decisions. METHODS: An online survey was administered to physicians licensed in New York State. RESULTS: Of the 164 physicians studied, 20.7% experienced severe distress during their first COVID-19 triage decisions. The mean distress score was not significantly different between physicians who received just-in-time training and those who did not (6.0 ± 2.7 vs 6.2 ± 2.8; P = 0.550) and between physicians who received clinical guidelines and those who did not (6.0 ± 2.9 vs 6.2 ± 2.7; P = 0.820). Substantially increased odds of severe distress were found in physicians who reported that their first COVID-19 triage decisions were inconsistent with their core values (adjusted odds ratio, 6.33; 95% confidence interval, 2.03-19.76) and who reported having insufficient skills and expertise (adjusted odds ratio 2.99, 95% confidence interval 0.91-9.87). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 5 physicians in New York experienced severe distress during their first COVID-19 triage decisions. Physicians with insufficient skills and expertise, and core values misaligned to triage decisions are at heightened risk of experiencing severe distress. Just-in-time training and clinical guidelines do not appear to alleviate distress experienced by physicians during their first COVID-19 triage decisions.

Preparing health professions students for terrorism, disaster, and public health emergencies: core competencies.

The recent increased threat of terrorism, coupled with the ever-present dangers posed by natural disasters and public health emergencies, clearly support the need to incorporate bioterrorism preparedness and emergency response material into the curricula of every health professions school in the nation. A main barrier to health care preparedness in this country is a lack of coordination across the spectrum of public health and health care communities and disciplines. Ensuring a unified and coordinated approach to preparedness requires that benchmarks and standards be consistent across health care disciplines and public health, with the most basic level being education of health professions students. Educational competencies establish the foundation that enables graduates to meet occupational competencies. However, educational needs for students differ from the needs of practitioners. In addition, there must be a clear connection between departments of public health and all other health care entities to ensure proper preparedness. The authors describe both a process and a list of core competencies for teaching emergency preparedness to students in the health care professions, developed in 2003 and 2004 by a team of experts from the four health professions schools of Columbia University in New York City. These competencies are directly applicable to medical, dental, nursing, and public health students. They can also easily be adapted to other health care disciplines, so long as differences in levels of proficiency and the need for clinical competency are taken into consideration.

Public health department training of emergency medical technicians for bioterrorism and public health emergencies: results of a national assessment.

HYPOTHESIS: The public health system has a specialized body of knowledge and expertise in bioterrorism and public health emergency management that can assist in the development and delivery of continuing medical education programs to meet the needs of emergency medical service providers. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of the basic and paramedic emergency medical service providers in the United States was surveyed to assess whether they had received training in weapons of mass destruction, bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, radiological terrorism, and/or public health emergencies, and how the training was provided. RESULTS: Local health departments provided little in the way of training in biologic, chemical, or radiological terrorism to responders (7.4%-14.9%). State health departments provided even less training (6.3%-17.3%) on all topics to emergency medical services providers. Training that was provided by the health department in bioterrorism and public health emergency response was associated with responder comfort in responding to a bioterrorism event (OR = 2.74, 95% CI = 2.68, 2.81). CONCLUSIONS: Local and state public health agencies should work with the emergency medical services systems to develop and deliver training with an all-hazards approach to disasters and other public health emergencies.