ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Precision medicine is data-driven health care tailored to individual patients based on their unique attributes, including biologic profiles, disease expressions, local environments, and socioeconomic conditions. Emergency medicine (EM) has been peripheral to the precision medicine discourse, lacking both a unified definition of precision medicine and a clear research agenda. We convened a national consensus conference to build a shared mental model and develop a research agenda for precision EM. METHODS: We held a conference to (1) define precision EM, (2) develop an evidence-based research agenda, and (3) identify educational gaps for current and future EM clinicians. Nine preconference workgroups (biomedical ethics, data science, health professions education, health care delivery and access, informatics, omics, population health, sex and gender, and technology and digital tools), comprising 84 individuals, garnered expert opinion, reviewed relevant literature, engaged with patients, and developed key research questions. During the conference, each workgroup shared how they defined precision EM within their domain, presented relevant conceptual frameworks, and engaged a broad set of stakeholders to refine precision EM research questions using a multistage consensus-building process. RESULTS: A total of 217 individuals participated in this initiative, of whom 115 were conference-day attendees. Consensus-building activities yielded a definition of precision EM and key research questions that comprised a new 10-year precision EM research agenda. The consensus process revealed three themes: (1) preeminence of data, (2) interconnectedness of research questions across domains, and (3) promises and pitfalls of advances in health technology and data science/artificial intelligence. The Health Professions Education Workgroup identified educational gaps in precision EM and discussed a training roadmap for the specialty. CONCLUSIONS: A research agenda for precision EM, developed with extensive stakeholder input, recognizes the potential and challenges of precision EM. Comprehensive clinician training in this field is essential to advance EM in this domain.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of non-physician provider-led palliative care (PC) interventions in the management of adults with advanced illnesses on patient-reported outcomes and advance care planning (ACP). METHODS: We included randomised trials and cluster trials published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov searched until July 2021 that examined individuals ≥18 years with a diagnosis of advanced, life-limiting illness and received a PC intervention led by a non-physician (nurse, advance practitioner or social worker). Our primary outcome was quality of life (QOL), which was extracted as unadjusted or adjusted estimates and measures of variability. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression and ACP. RESULTS: Among the 21 studies (2370 subjects), 13 included patients with cancer, 3 with heart failure, 4 with chronic respiratory disease and 1 with chronic kidney disease. The interventions were diverse and varied with respect to team composition and services offered. For QOL, the standardised mean differences suggested null effects of PC interventions compared with usual care at 1-2 months (0.04; 95% CI=-0.14 to 0.23, n=10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) and 6-7 months (0.10; 95% CI=-0.15 to 0.34, n=6 RCTs). The results for anxiety and depression were not significant also. For the ACP, there was a strong benefit for the PC intervention (absolute increase of 0.32% (95% CI=0.06 to 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, PC interventions delivered by non-physician were not associated with improvement in QOL, anxiety or depression but demonstrated an impact on the ACP discussion and documentation.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Clinicians have minimal guidance regarding the clinical consequences of each radiologic imaging option for suspected renal colic in the emergency department (ED), particularly in relation to patient-centered outcomes. In this scoping review, we sought to identify studies addressing the impact of imaging options on patient-centered aspects of ED renal colic care to help clinicians engage in informed shared decision making. Specifically, we sought to answer questions regarding the effect of obtaining computed tomography (CT; compared with an ultrasound or delayed imaging) on safety outcomes, accuracy, prognosis, and cost (financial and length of stay [LOS]). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search using Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science conference proceedings index, and Google Scholar, identifying studies pertaining to renal colic, urolithiasis, and ureterolithiasis. In a prior qualitative study, stakeholders identified 14 key questions regarding renal colic care in the domains of safety, accuracy, prognosis, and cost. We systematically screened studies and reviewed the full text of articles based on their ability to address the 14 key questions. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2570 titles, and 68 met the inclusion criteria. Substantial evidence informed questions regarding test accuracy and radiation exposure, but less evidence was available regarding the effect of imaging modality on patient-oriented outcomes such as cost and prognosis (admissions, ED revisits, and procedures). Reviewed studies demonstrated that both standard renal protocol CT and low-dose CT are highly accurate, with ultrasound having lower accuracy. Several studies found that ureterolithiasis diagnosed by ultrasound was associated with overall reduced radiation exposure. Existing studies did not suggest choice of imaging influences prognosis. Several studies found no substantial differences in monetary cost, but LOS was found to be shorter if a diagnosis was made with point-of-care ultrasound. CONCLUSION: There is a plethora of data related to imaging accuracy. However, there is minimal data regarding the effect of CT on many patient-centered outcomes. Further research could improve the patient-centeredness of ED care.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: With the myriad of cases presented to clinicians every day at our integrated academic health system, clinical questions are bound to arise. Clinicians need to recognize these knowledge gaps and act on them. However, for many reasons, clinicians might not seek answers to these questions. Our goal was to investigate the rationale and process behind these unanswered clinical questions. Subsequently, we explored the use of biomedical information resources among specialists and primary care providers and identified ways to promote more informed clinical decision making. METHODS: We conducted a survey to assess how practitioners identify and respond to information gaps, their background knowledge of search tools and strategies, and their usage of and comfort level with technology. RESULTS: Most of the 292 respondents encountered clinical questions at least a few times per week. While the vast majority often or always pursued answers, time was the biggest barrier for not following through on questions. Most respondents did not have any formal training in searching databases, were unaware of many digital resources, and indicated a need for resources and services that could be provided at the point of care. CONCLUSIONS: While the reasons for unanswered clinical questions varied, thoughtful review of the responses suggested that a combination of educational strategies, embedded librarian services, and technology applications could help providers pursue answers to their clinical questions, enhance patient safety, and contribute to patient-based, self-directed learning.
