Understanding Perceptions of Care Coordination and Chronic Illness Management among Black Breast and Prostate Cancer Survivors and Providers: Findings from a Quality Improvement Study.

Navigating cancer care is complex and is exacerbated by pre-existing comorbidities managed by multiple providers. In this quality improvement study, we evaluated changes in perceived care coordination, navigation, and chronic illness care with community health worker (CHW) and mHealth support among Black breast cancer and prostate cancer patients with hypertension and/or diabetes. We collected patient and provider surveys on chronic illness care coordination at baseline and six months and found improvements in multiple domains. These findings support engaging CHWs to improve care coordination among cancer patients with comorbidities and demonstrate a use case of importance with emerging navigation reimbursement policies.

Developing a multimedia patient-reported outcomes measure for low literacy patients with a human-centered design approach.

INTRODUCTION: Almost all patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are text-based, which impedes accurate completion by low and limited literacy patients. Few PROMs are designed or validated to be self-administered, either in clinical or research settings, by patients of all literacy levels. We aimed to adapt the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Short Form (PROMIS-UE) to a multimedia version (mPROMIS-UE) that can be self-administered by hand and upper extremity patients of all literacy levels. METHODS: Our study in which we applied the Multimedia Adaptation Protocol included seven phases completed in a serial, iterative fashion: planning with our community advisory board; direct observation; discovery interviews with patients, caregivers, and clinic staff; ideation; prototyping; member-checking interviews; and feedback. Direct observations were documented in memos that underwent rapid thematic analysis. Interviews were audio-recorded and documented using analytic memos; a rapid, framework-guided thematic analysis with both inductive and deductive themes was performed. Themes were distilled into design challenges to guide ideation and prototyping that involved our multidisciplinary research team. To assess completeness, credibility, and acceptability we completed additional interviews with member-checking of initial findings and consulted our community advisory board. RESULTS: We conducted 12 hours of observations. We interviewed 17 adult English-speaking participants (12 patients, 3 caregivers, 2 staff) of mixed literacy. Our interviews revealed two distinct user personas and three distinct literacy personas; we developed the mPROMIS-UE with these personas in mind. Themes from interviews were distilled into four broad design challenges surrounding literacy, customizability, convenience, and shame. We identified features (audio, animations, icons, avatars, progress indicator, illustrated response scale) that addressed the design challenges. The last 6 interviews included member-checking; participants felt that the themes, design challenges, and corresponding features resonated with them. These features were synthesized into an mPROMIS-UE prototype that underwent rounds of iterative refinement, the last of which was guided by recommendations from our community advisory board. DISCUSSION: We successfully adapted the PROMIS-UE to an mPROMIS-UE that addresses the challenges identified by a mixed literacy hand and upper extremity patient cohort. This demonstrates the feasibility of adapting PROMs to multimedia versions. Future research will include back adaptation, usability testing via qualitative evaluation, and psychometric validation of the mPROMIS-UE. A validated mPROMIS-UE will expand clinicians' and investigators' ability to capture patient-reported outcomes in mixed literacy populations.

Development and Evaluation of Patient Safety Interventions: Perspectives of Operational Safety Leaders and Patient Safety Organizations.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to understand how patient safety professionals from healthcare facilities and patient safety organizations develop patient safety interventions and the resources used to support intervention development. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patient safety professionals at nine healthcare facilities and nine patient safety organizations. Interview data were qualitatively analyzed, and findings were organized by the following: patient safety solutions and interventions, use of external databases, and evaluation of patient safety solutions. RESULTS: Development of patient safety interventions across healthcare facilities and patient safety organizations was similar and included literature searches, internal brainstorming, and interviews. Nearly all patient safety professionals at healthcare facilities reported contacting colleagues at other healthcare facilities to learn about similar safety issues and potential interventions. Additionally, less than half of patient safety professionals at healthcare facilities and patient safety organizations interviewed report data to publicly available patient safety databases. Finally, most patient safety professionals at healthcare facilities and patient safety organizations stated that they evaluate the effectiveness of patient safety interventions; however, they mentioned methods that may be less rigorous including audits, self-reporting, and subjective judgment. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety professionals often utilize similar methods and resources to develop and evaluate patient safety interventions; however, many of these efforts are not coordinated across healthcare organizations and could benefit from working collectively in a systematic fashion. Additionally, healthcare facilities and patient safety organizations face similar challenges and there are several opportunities for optimization on a national level that may improve patient safety.

Reading Room Interruptions are Less Disruptive When Using Asynchronous Communication Methods.

Radiologist interruptions, though often necessary, can be disruptive. Prior literature has shown interruptions to be frequent, occurring during cases, and predominantly through synchronous communication methods such as phone or in person causing significant disengagement from the study being read. Asynchronous communication methods are now more widely available in hospital systems such as ours. Considering the increasing use of asynchronous communication methods, we conducted an observational study to understand the evolving nature of radiology interruptions. We hypothesize that compared to interruptions occurring through synchronous methods, interruptions via asynchronous methods reduce the disruptive nature of interruptions by occurring between cases, being shorter, and less severe. During standard weekday hours, 30 radiologists (14 attendings, 12 residents, and 4 fellows) were directly observed for approximately 90-min sessions across three different reading rooms (body, neuroradiology, general). The frequency of interruptions was documented including characteristics such as timing, severity, method, and length. Two hundred twenty-five interruptions (43 Teams, 47 phone, 89 in-person, 46 other) occurred, averaging 2 min and 5 s with 5.2 interruptions per hour. Microsoft Teams interruptions averaged 1 min 12 s with only 60.5% during cases. In-person interruptions averaged 2 min 12 s with 82% during cases. Phone interruptions averaged 2 min and 48 s with 97.9% during cases. A substantial portion of reading room interruptions occur via predominantly asynchronous communication tools, a new development compared to prior literature. Interruptions via predominantly asynchronous communications tools are shorter and less likely to occur during cases. In our practice, we are developing tools and mechanisms to promote asynchronous communication to harness these benefits.

Accuracy of Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitoring in Critically Ill Adults.

Background: Blood pressure (BP) is routinely invasively monitored by an arterial catheter in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the available data comparing the accuracy of noninvasive methods to arterial catheters for measuring BP in the ICU are limited by small numbers and diverse methodologies. Purpose: To determine agreement between invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring (IABP) and noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) in critically ill patients. Methods: This was a single center, observational study of critical ill adults in a tertiary care facility evaluating agreement (≤10% difference) between simultaneously measured IABP and NIBP. We measured clinical features at time of BP measurement inclusive of patient demographics, laboratory data, severity of illness, specific interventions (mechanical ventilation and dialysis), and vasopressor dose to identify particular clinical scenarios in which measurement agreement is more or less likely. Results: Of the 1852 critically ill adults with simultaneous IABP and NIBP readings, there was a median difference of 6 mm Hg in mean arterial pressure (MAP), interquartile range (1-12), P < .01. A logistic regression analysis identified 5 independent predictors of measurement discrepancy: increasing doses of norepinephrine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.10 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.08-1.12] P = .03 for every change in 5 µg/min), lower MAP value (aOR 0.98 [0.98-0.99] P < .01 for every change in 1 mm Hg), higher body mass index (aOR 1.04 [1.01-1.09] P = .01 for an increase in 1), increased patient age (aOR 1.31 [1.30-1.37] P < .01 for every 10 years), and radial arterial line location (aOR 1.74 [1.16-2.47] P = .04). Conclusions: There was broad agreement between IABP and NIBP in critically ill patients over a range of BPs and severity of illness. Several variables are associated with measurement discrepancy; however, their predictive capacity is modest. This may guide future study into which patients may specifically benefit from an arterial catheter.