The Phenomenon of Community Reintegration for Veterans with Burn Injury: Supportive Communities and Future-Oriented Thinking.

Combat missions in the Middle East have resulted in approximately 52,000 U.S. veterans who have been wounded in action, with 10% of whom suffered burn injuries. More than 90% of the wounded survived, but many were unable to return to military service. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that impacted reintegration of veterans with combat burn injuries. Using a mixed-methods approach and analysis, we asked veterans with combat burns "What was your experience reintegrating into the civilian community?" Additionally, we administered the Community Reintegration of Injured Service Members (CRIS) tool to measure the current level of reintegration. Six veterans with combat burn injury identified two major themes: supportive communities and future-oriented thinking. Supportive communities are defined as communities that are veteran-specific, provide long-term burn/injury care, are financially beneficial, and support hobbies, education, and work opportunities. Future-oriented thinking is defined as thinking in which a veteran experiences a turning point in recovery, has a desire to serve others, develops new meaning in life, and experiences posttraumatic growth. In both themes, peer support was a key component. Community reintegration was enhanced by future-oriented thinking and a supportive community, both of which can be buoyed by peer support. These findings are similar to other studies noting the importance of peer support for veterans. Studies of civilians burn survivors describe similar reintegration issues. These two factors may also be applicable to those survivors. Further qualitative inquiry into peer support in the burn community at large may reveal more actionable evidence which could enable burn survivors to meet the long-term goal of community reintegration.

Nursing Leadership During COVID-19: Leading an Inpatient Response at a Regional Military Medical Center.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic stressed healthcare systems worldwide and exposed major flaws in military and civilian healthcare systems. Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) serves as the only military medical center for over 205,000 U.S. service members, beneficiaries, and coalition partners stationed throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The pandemic response required LRMC leaders to reconfigure services to meet pandemic concerns while providing lifesaving care to injured service members from combatant commands. The quickly evolving pandemic challenged leaders to ensure healthcare delivery amid constant change and imperfect information. While LRMC senior leaders developed a strategic pandemic response plan, a multidisciplinary team of nurses, doctors, and technicians collaborated to create an inpatient team to support the dual mission of coronavirus disease 2019 response and casualty care for the warfighter. In this manuscript, we discuss how a multidisciplinary clinical working group at a regional medical center prepared and responded to the pandemic, strategically planned patient care, and ensured support to combatant commands for ongoing forward military operations. Additionally, we share our experiences and lessons learned to inform other military facilities across the medical community and global healthcare systems.

Improving Clinician Decisions and Communication in Critical Care Using Novel Information Technology.

INTRODUCTION: The electronic medical record (EMR) is presumed to support clinician decisions by documenting and retrieving patient information. Research shows that the EMR variably affects patient care and clinical decision making. The way information is presented likely has a significant impact on this variability. Well-designed representations of salient information can make a task easier by integrating information in useful patterns that clinicians use to make improved clinical judgments and decisions. Using Cognitive Systems Engineering methods, our research team developed a novel health information technology (NHIT) that interfaces with the EMR to display salient clinical information and enabled communication with a dedicated text-messaging feature. The software allows clinicians to customize displays according to their role and information needs. Here we present results of usability and validation assessments of the NHIT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our subjects were physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and physician trainees. Two arms of this study were conducted, a usability assessment and then a validation assessment. The usability assessment was a computer-based simulation using deceased patient data. After a brief five-minute orientation, the usability assessment measured individual clinician performance of typical tasks in two clinical scenarios using the NHIT. The clinical scenarios included patient admission to the unit and patient readiness for surgery. We evaluated clinician perspective about the NHIT after completing tasks using 7-point Likert scale surveys. In the usability assessment, the primary outcome was participant perceptions about the system's ease of use compared to the legacy system.A subsequent cross-over, validation assessment compared performance of two clinical teams during simulated care scenarios: one using only the legacy IT system and one using the NHIT in addition to the legacy IT system. We oriented both teams to the NHIT during a 1-hour session on the night before the first scenario. Scenarios were conducted using high-fidelity simulation in a real burn intensive care unit room. We used observations, task completion times, semi-structured interviews, and surveys to compare user decisions and perceptions about their performance. The primary outcome for the validation assessment was time to reach accurate (correct) decision points. RESULTS: During the usability assessment, clinicians were able to complete all tasks requested. Clinicians reported the NHIT was easier to use and the novel information display allowed for easier data interpretation compared to subject recollection of the legacy EMR.In the validation assessment, a more junior team of clinicians using the NHIT arrived at accurate diagnoses and decision points at similar times as a more experienced team. Both teams noted improved communication between team members when using the NHIT and overall rated the NHIT as easier to use than the legacy EMR, especially with respect to finding information. CONCLUSIONS: The primary findings of these assessments are that clinicians found the NHIT easy to use despite minimal training and experience and that it did not degrade clinician efficiency or decision-making accuracy. These findings are in contrast to common user experiences when introduced to new EMRs in clinical practice.

The Role of Binocularity in Anisometropic Amblyopia.

Anisometropic amblyopia is unilateral by definition and current treatment recommendations reflect that characteristic. However, recent research suggests a binocular component that deserves consideration. The aim of this review is to consider the levels of anisometropia deemed amblyogenic, and the cortical changes that occur in the presence of anisometropic amblyopia. Particular attention is given to cortical changes that impact the binocularity of these individuals. Knowledge of binocular deficits in anisometropic amblyopia has implications for current, accepted treatment regimens which are monocular in nature. Therefore, the integrity of binocular function in anisometropic amblyopia and its impact on the visual outcome will be evaluated. Given the rise in binocular treatments under clinical trial for amblyopia, this review also aims to evaluate the evidence of potentially enhanced benefits to anisometropic amblyopes from proposed new binocular therapies.

Comparing the Workload Perceptions of Identifying Patient Condition and Priorities of Care Among Burn Providers in Three Burn ICUs.

Multidisciplinary rounds (MDRs) in the burn intensive care unit serve as an efficient means for clinicians to assess patient status and establish patient care priorities. Both tasks require significant cognitive work, the magnitude of which is relevant because increased cognitive work of task completion has been associated with increased error rates. We sought to quantify this workload during MDR using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Research staff at three academic regional referral burn centers administered the NASA-TLX to clinicians during MDR. Clinicians assessed their workload associated with 1) "Identify(ing) if the patient is better, same, or worse than yesterday" and 2) "Identify(ing) the most important objectives of care for the patient today." Data were collected on clinician type, years of experience, and hours of direct patient care. Surveys were administered to 116 total clinicians, 41 physicians, 25 nurses, 13 medical students, and 37 clinicians in other roles. Clinicians with less experience reported more cognitive work when completing both tasks (P < .005). Clinicians in the "others" group (respiratory therapists, dieticians, pharmacists, etc.) reported less cognitive work than all other groups for both tasks (P < .05). The NASA-TLX was an effective tool for collecting perceptions of cognitive workload associated with MDR. Perceived cognitive work varied by clinician type and experience level when completing two key tasks. Less experience was associated with increased perceived work, potentially increasing mental error rates, and increasing risk to patients. Creating tools or work processes to reduce cognitive work may improve clinician performance.

Phases-of-illness paradigm: better communication, better outcomes.

Communication failures are a significant contributor to medical errors that harm patients. Critical care delivery is a complex system of inter-professional work that is distributed across time, space, and multiple disciplines. Because health-care education and delivery remain siloed by profession, we lack a shared framework within which we discuss and subsequently optimize patient care. Furthermore, our disparate professional perspectives and interests often interfere with our ability to effectively prioritize individual care. It is important, therefore, to develop a cognitively shared framework for understanding a patient's severity of illness and plan of care across multiple, traditionally poorly communicating disciplines. We suggest that the 'phases-of-illness paradigm' will facilitate communication about critically ill patients and create a shared mental model for interdisciplinary patient care. In so doing, this paradigm may reduce communication errors, complications, and costs while improving resource utilization and trainee education. Additional research applications are feasible.