A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.

BACKGROUND: Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study. OBJECTIVE: To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research. CONCLUSION: This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.

Exploration of current pharmacy practice in cardio-oncology: Experiences & perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular complications can occur in oncology patients secondary to certain cancer therapies. Pharmacists are involved in the care of oncology patients who are at risk of or experiencing cardiotoxicity related to their cancer therapy. Our study aimed to understand how pharmacists in Canada care to these patients and to explore their experiences, perceptions, and challenges. METHODS: Canadian pharmacists currently involved in the care of patients receiving cancer treatments and at risk of or experiencing cardiotoxicity were invited to participate in a 30-min telephone interview using an interview guide. A combination of inductive and deductive reasoning was applied using two coders who independently reviewed the transcribed interviews and identified key concepts and themes. RESULTS: Eight pharmacists were interviewed. Perceived benefits included sharing specialized knowledge and conducting safety assessments. Perceived challenges were the lack of role recognition and resources and fractured continuity of care. Proposed future directions were to play a more substantial role in direct medication management, creation of specific guidance and tools to support the clinical decision-making process, and to understand how pharmacists at other sites were providing care through the creation of a community of practice. CONCLUSIONS: As patient-focused medication specialists, pharmacists help guide clinical decision-making, assess cardiac risk factors, and offer individualized education to meet the holistic needs of oncology patients at risk of or experiencing cardiotoxicities. The creation of a cardio-oncology community of practice may allow pharmacists with a common interest to connect, share learnings, and collaborate on how to continue to advance the delivery of care.

How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction-validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%). CONCLUSION: This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932 .

Incidence and outcomes of critical illness in Indigenous Peoples: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Indigenous Peoples experience health inequities across the continuum of health services. Improvements for Indigenous patients and their families during vulnerable experiences with the healthcare system may have a significant impact on the patient experience and outcomes. Improved understanding of the occurrence of critical illness in Indigenous Peoples and their use of critical care services, as a strategic priority, may aid in the development of initiatives for improving health equity. A global focus was selected to learn from Indigenous populations' experiences with critical care, as the understanding of critical illness among Indigenous Peoples in Canada is not well understood. This protocol outlines a systematic review focused on describing the incidence of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched. Relevant Canadian sites for gray literature (National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, First Nations Health Authority, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Indigenous Peoples' Health, National Association of Friendship Centres, the Alberta First Nations Information Governance Centre, Métis Nation of Alberta) will also be searched. We will include studies of adults (≥18 years) either without critical illness (i.e., general population) or with critical illness (i.e., admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU)). The exposure of interest will be Indigenous identity. Primary outcome measures are ICU admission and ICU mortality. Because heterogeneity in populations, comparisons, and outcome measures is anticipated, it is likely that the findings will be summarized using a narrative synthesis. A meta-analysis will be performed if there is sufficient evidence on one or more outcomes of interest. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a better understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, and outcomes of critical illness and utilization of critical care services among Indigenous Peoples. The knowledge generated will be applied to a broader program of work designed to create ethical space to co-design, implement, and evaluate a culturally competent, safe, and innovative model for critical care services for Indigenous People. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021254661.

Development and Content Validation of a Multidisciplinary Standardized Management Pathway for Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome is complex. Evidence-based therapies that can improve survival and guidelines advocating their use exist; however, implementation is inconsistent. Our objective was to develop and validate an evidence-based, stakeholder-informed standardized management pathway for hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome to improve adherence to best practice. DESIGN: A standardized management pathway was developed using a modified Delphi consensus process with a multidisciplinary group of ICU clinicians. The proposed pathway was externally validated with a survey involving multidisciplinary stakeholders and clinicians. SETTING: In-person meeting and web-based surveys of ICU clinicians from 17 adult ICUs in the province of Alberta, Canada. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The consensus panel was comprised of 30 ICU clinicians (4 nurses, 10 respiratory therapists, 15 intensivists, 1 nurse practitioner; median years of practice 17 [interquartile range, 13-21]). Ninety-one components were serially rated and revised over two rounds of online and one in-person review. The final pathway included 46 elements. For the validation survey, 692 responses (including 59% nurses, 33% respiratory therapists, 7% intensivists and 1% nurse practitioners) were received. Agreement of greater than 75% was achieved on 43 of 46 pathway elements. CONCLUSIONS: A 46-element evidence-informed hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome standardized management pathway was developed and demonstrated to have content validity.

Understanding patient engagement in health system decision-making: a co-designed scoping review.

BACKGROUND: With healthcare striving to shift to a more person-centered delivery model, patient and family involvement must have a bigger role in shaping this. While many initiatives involving patients and family members focus on self-care, a broader understanding of patient participation is necessary. Ensuring a viable and sustainable critical number of qualified patients and family members to support this shift will be of utmost importance. The purpose of this study was to understand how health systems are intentionally investing in the training and skill development of patients and family members. METHODS: Patient co-investigators and researchers conducted a scoping review of the existing literature on methods adopted by healthcare systems to build the skills and capacity of patients to participate in healthcare decision-making using a recognized methodological framework. Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full-text papers for inclusion. The research team independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by achieving consensus through discussion. Quantitative and qualitative content synthesis, as well as a quality assessment, was conducted. RESULTS: After eliminating duplicates, the search resulted in 9428 abstracts. Four hundred fifty-eight articles were reviewed and 15 articles were included. Four themes emerged: forums (33%), patient instructors (20%), workshops (33%), and co-design (13%). Four of the identified studies measured the impact and overall effectiveness of the respective programs. Examples of how patient and family members were supported (invested in) included advocacy training to support future involvement in engagement activities, a training program to conduct patient-led research, involvement in an immersive experience-based co-design initiative, and involvement in training pharmacy students. Overall, these studies found positive outcomes when patients and family members were recipients of these opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this scoping review demonstrate that an evidence base around programs to advance patient engagement is largely absent. An opportunity exists for further research to identify strategies and measures to support patient engagement in healthcare decision-making.

Identifying essential elements to include in Intensive Care Unit to hospital ward transfer summaries: A consensus methodology.

PURPOSE: Transitions of care from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward are high risk and contingent on effective communication. We sought to identify essential information elements to be included in an ICU to hospital ward transfer summary tool, and describe tool functionality and composition perceived to be important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of 13 clinicians representing ICU and hospital ward providers used a modified Delphi process to iteratively review and rate unique information elements identified from existing ICU transfer tools through three rounds of review (two remote and one in person). Qualitative content analysis was conducted on transcribed audio recordings of the workshop to characterize tool functionality and composition. RESULTS: A total of 141 unique information elements were reviewed of which 63 were identified by panelists as essential. Qualitative content analyses of panelist discussions identified three themes related to how information elements should be considered when developing an ICU transfer summary tool: 1) Flexibility, 2) Usability, and 3) Accountability. CONCLUSION: We identified 63 distinct information elements identified as essential for inclusion in an ICU transfer summary tool to facilitate communication between providers during the transition of patient care from the ICU to a hospital ward.

Outcomes of selective nonoperative management of civilian abdominal gunshot wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although mandatory laparotomy has been standard of care for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs) for decades, this approach is associated with non-therapeutic operations, morbidity, and long hospital stays. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to summarize outcomes of selective nonoperative management (SNOM) of civilian abdominal GSWs. Methods: We searched electronic databases (March 1966-April 1, 2017) and reference lists of articles included in the systematic review for studies reporting outcomes of SNOM of civilian abdominal GSWs. We meta-analyzed the associated risks of SNOM-related failure (defined as laparotomy during hospital admission), mortality, and morbidity across included studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2 statistics and conducting tests of homogeneity. Results: Of 7155 citations identified, we included 41 studies [n = 22,847 patients with abdominal GSWs, of whom 6777 (29.7%) underwent SNOM]. The pooled risk of failure of SNOM in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis was 7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.9-10.1%; I2 = 92.6%, homogeneity p < 0.001] while the pooled mortality associated with use of SNOM in this patient population was 0.4% (95% CI = 0.2-0.6%; I2 = 0%, homogeneity p > 0.99). In patients who failed SNOM, the pooled estimate of the risk of therapeutic laparotomy was 68.0% (95% CI = 58.3-77.7%; I2 = 91.5%; homogeneity p < 0.001). Risks of failure of SNOM were lowest in studies that evaluated patients with right thoracoabdomen (3.4%; 95% CI = 0-7.0%; I2 = 0%; homogeneity p = 0.45), flank (7.0%; 95% CI = 3.9-10.1%), and back (3.1%; 95% CI = 0-6.5%) GSWs and highest in those that evaluated patients with anterior abdomen (13.2%; 95% CI = 6.3-20.1%) GSWs. In patients who underwent mandatory abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT), the pooled risk of failure was 4.1% versus 8.3% in those who underwent selective CT (p = 0.08). The overall sample-size-weighted mean hospital length of stay among patients who underwent SNOM was 6 days versus 10 days if they failed SNOM or developed an in-hospital complication. Conclusions: SNOM of abdominal GSWs is safe when conducted in hemodynamically stable patients without a reduced level of consciousness or signs of peritonitis. Failure of SNOM may be lower in patients with GSWs to the back, flank, or right thoracoabdomen and be decreased by mandatory use of abdominopelvic CT scans.

Secondary EMR data for quality improvement and research: A comparison of manual and electronic data collection from an integrated critical care electronic medical record system.

PURPOSE: This study measured the quality of data extracted from a clinical information system widely used for critical care quality improvement and research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We abstracted data from 30 fields in a random sample of 207 patients admitted to nine adult, medical-surgical intensive care units. We assessed concordance between data collected: (1) manually from the bedside system (eCritical MetaVision) by trained auditors, and (2) electronically from the system data warehouse (eCritical TRACER). Agreement was assessed using Cohen's Kappa for categorical variables and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables. RESULTS: Concordance between data sets was excellent. There was perfect agreement for 11/30 variables (35%). The median Kappa score for the 16 categorical variables was 0.99 (IQR 0.92-1.00). APACHE II had an ICC of 0.936 (0.898-0.960). The lowest concordance was observed for SOFA renal and respiratory components (ICC 0.804 and 0.846, respectively). Score translation errors by the manual auditor were the most common source of data discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: Manual validation processes of electronic data are complex in comparison to validation of traditional clinical documentation. This study represents a straightforward approach to validate the use of data repositories to support reliable and efficient use of high quality secondary use data.

Administrator Perspectives on ICU-to-Ward Transfers and Content Contained in Existing Transfer Tools: a Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The transfer of critically ill patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to hospital ward is challenging. Shortcomings in the delivery of care for patients transferred from the ICU have been associated with higher healthcare costs and poor satisfaction with care. Little is known about how hospital ward providers, who accept care of these patients, perceive current transfer practices nor which aspects of transfer they perceive as needing improvement. OBJECTIVE: To compare ICU and ward administrator perspectives regarding ICU-to-ward transfer practices and evaluate the content of transfer tools. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey design. PARTICIPANTS: We administered a survey to 128 medical and/or surgical ICU and 256 ward administrators to obtain institutional perspectives on ICU transfer practices. We performed qualitative content analysis on ICU transfer tools received from respondents. KEY RESULTS: In total, 108 (77%) ICU and 160 (63%) ward administrators responded to the survey. The ICU attending physician was reported to be "primarily responsible" for the safety (93% vs. 91%; p = 0.515) of patient transfers. ICU administrators more commonly perceived discharge summaries to be routinely included in patient transfers than ward administrators (81% vs. 60%; p = 0.006). Both groups identified information provided to patients/families, patient/family participation during transfer, and ICU-ward collaboration as opportunities for improvement. A minority of hospitals used ICU-to-ward transfer tools (11%) of which most (n = 21 unique) were designed to communicate patient information between providers (71%) and comprised six categories of information: demographics, patient clinical course, corrective aids, mobility at discharge, review of systems, and documentation of transfer procedures. CONCLUSION: ICU and ward administrators have similar perspectives of transfer practices and identified patient/family engagement and communication as priorities for improvement. Key information categories exist.

Patient, family and provider experiences with transfers from intensive care unit to hospital ward: a multicentre qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Transfer of patient care from an intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward is often challenging, high risk and inefficient. We assessed patient and provider perspectives on barriers and facilitators to high-quality transfers and recommendations to improve the transfer process. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews of participants from a multicentre prospective cohort study of ICU transfers conducted at 10 hospitals across Canada. We purposively sampled 1 patient, 1 family member of a patient, 1 ICU provider, and 1 ward provider at each of the 8 English-speaking sites. Qualitative content analysis was used to derive themes, subthemes and recommendations. RESULTS: The 35 participants described 3 interrelated, overarching themes perceived as barriers or facilitators to high-quality patient transfers: resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Common recommendations suggested to improve ICU transfers included implementing standardized communication tools that streamline provider-provider and provider-patient communication, using multimodal communication to facilitate timely, accurate, durable and mutually reinforcing information transfer; and developing procedures to manage delays in transfer to ensure continuity of care for patients in the ICU waiting for a hospital ward bed. INTERPRETATION: Patient and provider perspectives attribute breakdown of ICU-to-ward transfers of care to resource availability, communication and institutional culture. Patients and providers recommend standardized, multimodal communication and transfer procedures to improve quality of care.

Coronary Artery Disease Patient Perspectives on Exercise Participation.

PURPOSE: Participation in exercise programs postmyocardial infarction is highly protective against future events and mortality. Unfortunately, uptake and maintenance of exercise participation has been documented as being low. This is thought to be due to a myriad of barriers. Qualitative research is a powerful tool to explain behaviors. We sought to summarize existing qualitative literature exploring patient perspectives of participation in exercise after a cardiac event. METHODS: We updated and built upon a previous systematic review and meta-synthesis by identifying qualitative literature that was not previously captured. We used grounded formal theory to synthesize the qualitative findings in the selected literature. This process led to the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework for understanding the determinants of exercise participation. RESULTS: We found that external, internal, and cultural factors work together as umbrella themes to influence exercise initiation and continued participation in patients who have experienced a cardiac event. Internal factors expand into physical, cognitive, and emotional domains, which include fear, motivation, and mood. External factors include the domains of pragmatic and social considerations such as safety, accessibility, and social support networks. Cognitive and social domains were the most frequently cited factors influencing participation in exercise programs. CONCLUSIONS: The framework we outline allows for a more complete understanding of the factors that influence the exercise behaviors of patients with coronary artery disease. Cardiac rehabilitation programs should consider the key factors and capitalize on this knowledge, making these facilitators rather than barriers to exercise participation.

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making.

BACKGROUND: Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations. OBJECTIVE: To describe the decision-making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list. DESIGN: We employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision-making process for establishing consensus. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Nine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients. RESULTS: Panellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the "Top 5" priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups.

Developing a framework to guide the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care medicine: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems have difficulty incorporating scientific evidence into clinical practice, especially when science suggests that existing clinical practices are of low-value (e.g. ineffective or harmful to patients). While a number of lists outlining low-value practices in acute care medicine currently exist, less is known about how best to initiate and sustain the removal of low-value clinical practices (i.e. de-adoption). This study will develop a comprehensive list of barriers and facilitators to the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care facilities to inform the development of a framework to guide the de-adoption process. METHODS: The proposed project is a multi-stage mixed methods study to develop a framework to guide the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care medicine that will be tested in a representative sample of acute care settings in Alberta, Canada. Specifically, we will: 1) conduct a systematic review of the de-adoption literature to identify published barriers and facilitators to the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices in acute care medicine and any associated interventions proposed (Phase one); 2) conduct focus groups with acute care stakeholders to identify important themes not published in the literature and obtain a comprehensive appreciation of stakeholder perspectives (Phase two); 3) extend the generalizability of focus group findings by conducting individual stakeholder surveys with a representative sample of acute care providers throughout the province to determine which barriers and facilitators identified in Phases one and two are most relevant in their clinical setting (Phase three). Identified barriers and facilitators will be catalogued and integrated with targeted interventions in a framework to guide the process of de-adoption in each of four targeted areas of acute care medicine (Emergency Medicine, Cardiovascular Health and Stroke, Surgery and Critical Care Medicine). Analyses will be descriptive using a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses. DISCUSSION: There is a growing body of literature suggesting that the de-adoption of ineffective or harmful practices from patient care is integral to the delivery of high quality care and healthcare sustainability. The framework developed in this study will map barriers and facilitators to de-adoption to the most appropriate interventions, allowing stakeholders to effectively initiate, execute and sustain this process in an evidence-based manner.

Development and Validation of Quality Criteria for Providing Patient- and Family-centered Injury Care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care. BACKGROUND: Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care. METHODS: Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.

A retrospective cohort study of the relationship between quality indicator measurement and patient outcomes in adult trauma centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Improving care is a key strategy for reducing the burden of injuries, but it is unknown whether the use of quality indicators (QI) is associated with patient outcomes. We sought to evaluate the association between the use of QIs by trauma centers and outcomes in adult injury patients. METHODS: We identified consecutive adult patients (n=223,015) admitted to 233 verified trauma centers January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010 that contributed data to the National Trauma Data Bank and participated in a survey of QI practices. Generalized Linear Mixed Models were employed to evaluate the association between the intensity (number of QIs) and nature (report cards, internal and external benchmarking) of QI use and survival to hospital discharge, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the odds of survival to trauma center discharge according to the number of QIs measured (quartiles; odds ratio{OR} [95% confidence interval{CI}] 1.00 vs. 1.08 [0.90-1.31] vs. 1.00 [0.82-1.22] vs. 1.21 [0.99-1.49]), or whether centers used reports cards (OR 1.07, 95%CI 0.94-1.23), internal (OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.89-1.26) or external (OR 1.09, 95%CI 0.92-1.31) benchmarking. The duration (geometric mean) of mechanical ventilation (4.0days), ICU stay (4.6days), hospital stay (7.7days) and proportion of patients with a complication (13.6%) did not significantly differ according to the intensity or nature of QI use. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity and nature of the QIs used by trauma centers was not associated with outcomes of patient care. Alternative quality improvement strategies may be needed.

Engaging the Public to Identify Opportunities to Improve Critical Care: A Qualitative Analysis of an Open Community Forum.

OBJECTIVE: To engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients. DESIGN: A qualitative content analysis of an open community forum (Café Scientifique). SETTING: Public venue in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the general public including patients, families of patients, health care providers, and members of the community at large. METHODS: A panel of researchers, decision-makers, and a family member led a Café Scientifique, an informal dialogue between the populace and experts, over three-hours to engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients. Conventional qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. The inductive analysis occurred in three phases: coding, categorizing, and developing themes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight members of the public (former ICU patients, family members of patients, providers, community members) attended. Participants focused the discussion and provided concrete suggestions for improvement around communication (family as surrogate voice, timing of conversations, decision tools) and provider well-being and engagement, as opposed to medical interventions in critical care. CONCLUSIONS: Café participants believe patient and family centered care is important to ensure high-quality care in the ICU. A Café Scientifique is a valuable forum to engage the public to contribute to priority setting areas for research in critical care, as well as a platform to share lived experience. Research stakeholders including health care organizations, governments, and funding organizations should provide more opportunities for the public to engage in meaningful conversations about how to best improve healthcare.

A scoping review of patient discharge from intensive care: opportunities and tools to improve care.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a scoping review to systematically review the literature reporting patient discharge from ICUs, identify facilitators and barriers to high-quality care, and describe tools developed to improve care. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were extracted on the article type, study details for research articles, patient population, phase of care during discharge, and dimensions of health-care quality. RESULTS: From 8,154 unique publications we included 224 articles. Of these, 131 articles (58%) were original research, predominantly case series (23%) and cohort (16%) studies; 12% were narrative reviews; and 11% were guidelines/policies. Common themes included patient and family needs/experiences (29% of articles) and the importance of complete and accurate information (26%). Facilitators of high-quality care included provider-patient communication (30%), provider-provider communication (25%), and the use of guidelines/policies (29%). Patient and family anxiety (21%) and limited availability of ICU and ward resources (26%) were reported barriers to high-quality care. A total of 47 tools to facilitate patient discharge from the ICU were identified and focused on patient evaluation for discharge (29%), discharge planning and teaching (47%), and optimized discharge summaries (23%). CONCLUSIONS: Common themes, facilitators and barriers related to patient and family needs/experiences, communication, and the use of guidelines/policies to standardize patient discharge from ICU transcend the literature. Candidate tools to improve care are available; comparative evaluation is needed prior to broad implementation and could be tested through local quality-improvement programs.

Stakeholder views regarding patient discharge from intensive care: Suboptimal quality and opportunities for improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the first description of intensive care unit (ICU) discharge practices from the perspective of Canadian ICU administrators, and ICU providers from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. METHODS: The authors identified 140 Canadian ICUs and administered a survey to ICU administrators (unit manager, director) to obtain an institutional perspective. Also surveyed were members of professional critical care associations in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, using membership distribution lists, to obtain a provider perspective. RESULTS: A total of 118 ICU administrators (114 ICUs [81%]) and 737 ICU providers (denominator unknown) responded to the survey. Administrator and provider respondents reported that ICU physicians are primarily responsible for determining the timing (70% and 77%, respectively) and safety (94% and 96%) for patients discharged from ICU. The majority of respondents indicated that patient summaries (87% and 85%) and medication reconciliation (78% and 79%) were part of their institutions' discharge process. One-half of respondents reported the use of discharge protocols, while a minority indicated that checklists (46% and 44%), electronic tools (19% and 28%) or outreach follow-up (44% and 33%) were used. The majority of respondents rated current ICU discharge practices to be of medium quality (57% and 58% scored 3 on a five-point scale). Suggested opportunities for improvement included the information provided to patients and families (71% and 59%) and collaboration among hospital units (65% and 66%). CONCLUSION: Findings from the present study revealed the complexity of the ICU discharge process, considerable practice variation, perception of only medium quality and several proposed opportunities for improvement.