Decreased patient discharges on weekends part 3: what do the leaders tell us?

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) crowding is a significant challenge to providing safe and quality care to patients. We know that hospital and ED crowding is exacerbated on Mondays because fewer in-patients are discharged on the weekend. We evaluated barriers and potential solutions to improve in-patient flow and diminished weekend discharges, in hopes of decreasing the severe ED crowding observed on Mondays. METHODS: In this observational study, we conducted interviews of (a) leaders at The Ottawa Hospital, a major academic health sciences centre (nursing, allied health, physicians), and (b) leaders of community facilities (long-term care and chronic hospital) that receive patients from the hospital, and (c) home care. Each interview was conducted individually and addressed perceived barriers to the discharge of hospital in-patients on weekends as well as potential solutions. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted whereby themes were organized into a summary table of barriers and solutions. RESULTS: We interviewed 40 leaders including 30 nursing, physician, and allied health leaders from the hospital as well as 10 senior personnel from community facilities and home care. Many barriers to weekend discharges were identified, highlighting that this problem is complex with many interdependent internal and external factors. Fortunately, many specific potential solutions were suggested, in immediate, short-term and long-term time horizons. While many solutions require additional resources, others require a culture change whereby hospital and community stakeholders recognize that services must be provided consistently, seven days a week. INTERPRETATION: We have identified the complex and interdependent barriers to weekend discharges of in-patients. There are numerous specific opportunities for hospital staff and services, physicians, and community facilities to provide the same patient care on weekends as on weekdays. This will lead to improved patient flow and safety, and to decreased ED crowding on Mondays.

ABSTRAIT: CONTEXTE: Le surpeuplement des services d'urgence (SU) est un défi important pour fournir des soins sécuritaires et de qualité aux patients. Nous savons que le surpeuplement des hôpitaux et des urgences est exacerbé le lundi parce que moins de patients hospitalisés reçoivent leur congé le week-end. Nous avons évalué les obstacles et les solutions potentielles pour améliorer le flux de patients hospitalisés et diminuer les congés de fin de semaine, dans l'espoir de réduire le surpeuplement sévère observé le lundi. MéTHODES: Dans cette étude observationnelle, nous avons interviewé (a) des dirigeants de l'Hôpital d'Ottawa, un important centre universitaire des sciences de la santé (soins infirmiers, soins paramédicaux, médecins), et (b) des dirigeants d'établissements communautaires (soins de longue durée et hôpitaux de soins chroniques) qui reçoivent des patients de l'hôpital et (c) des soins à domicile. Chaque entrevue a été menée individuellement et a abordé les obstacles perçus au congé des patients hospitalisés le week-end ainsi que les solutions potentielles. Une analyse thématique inductive a été menée, dans le cadre de laquelle les thèmes ont été organisés en un tableau récapitulatif des obstacles et des solutions RéSULTATS: Nous avons interviewé 40 dirigeants, dont 30 chefs de file des soins infirmiers, des médecins et des professions paramédicales de l'hôpital, ainsi que 10 cadres supérieurs d'établissements communautaires et de soins à domicile. De nombreux obstacles aux congés de fin de semaine ont été cernés, ce qui souligne que ce problème est complexe et qu'il comporte de nombreux facteurs internes et externes interdépendants. Heureusement, de nombreuses solutions potentielles spécifiques ont été proposées, à court terme et à long terme. Bien que de nombreuses solutions exigent des ressources supplémentaires, d'autres exigent un changement de culture par lequel les intervenants hospitaliers et communautaires reconnaissent que les services doivent être fournis de façon uniforme, sept jours par semaine. INTERPRéTATION: Nous avons identifié les obstacles complexes et interdépendants aux sorties de fin de semaine des patients hospitalisés. Il existe de nombreuses possibilités précises pour le personnel et les services hospitaliers, les médecins et les établissements communautaires d'offrir les mêmes soins aux patients les fins de semaine que les jours de semaine. Cela permettra d'améliorer la circulation et la sécurité des patients, et de réduire le surpeuplement des urgences le lundi.

Mapping gender and sexual minority representation in cancer research: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the risk of people from gender and sexual minority (GSM) groups experiencing inequities throughout the cancer continuum requires a robust evidence base. In this scoping review, we aim to map the literature on cancer outcomes among adults from GSM groups and the factors that influence them along the cancer continuum. METHODS: This mixed-methods scoping review will follow the approach outlined by JBI. We will systematically search electronic databases for literature in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts to determine eligibility based on inclusion criteria, and then retrieve full text articles for data extraction. Results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Quantitative data will be qualitized through a narrative interpretation and pooled with qualitative data. We will use meta-aggregation to synthesize findings. This protocol was developed in collaboration with GSM patient and public advisors. We will engage people from GSM groups, community organizations and knowledge users in disseminating results. INTERPRETATION: This review will direct future research efforts by expanding the wider body of research examining cancer disparities across the cancer continuum that GSM groups experience, identifying literature gaps and limitations, and highlighting relevant social determinants of health that influence cancer outcomes for adults from GSM groups.

Sleep and cognition in aging dogs. A polysomnographic study.

Introduction: Sleep is fundamental for cognitive homeostasis, especially in senior populations since clearance of amyloid beta (key in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease) occurs during sleep. Some electroencephalographic characteristics of sleep and wakefulness have been considered a hallmark of dementia. Owners of dogs with canine cognitive dysfunction syndrome (a canine analog to Alzheimer's disease) report that their dogs suffer from difficulty sleeping. The aim of this study was to quantify age-related changes in the sleep-wakefulness cycle macrostructure and electroencephalographic features in senior dogs and to correlate them with their cognitive performance. Methods: We performed polysomnographic recordings in 28 senior dogs during a 2 h afternoon nap. Percentage of time spent in wakefulness, drowsiness, NREM, and REM sleep, as well as latency to the three sleep states were calculated. Spectral power, coherence, and Lempel Ziv Complexity of the brain oscillations were estimated. Finally, cognitive performance was evaluated by means of the Canine Dementia Scale Questionnaire and a battery of cognitive tests. Correlations between age, cognitive performance and sleep-wakefulness cycle macrostructure and electroencephalographic features were calculated. Results: Dogs with higher dementia scores and with worse performance in a problem-solving task spent less time in NREM and REM sleep. Additionally, quantitative electroencephalographic analyses showed differences in dogs associated with age or cognitive performance, some of them reflecting shallower sleep in more affected dogs. Discussion: Polysomnographic recordings in dogs can detect sleep-wakefulness cycle changes associated with dementia. Further studies should evaluate polysomnography's potential clinical use to monitor the progression of canine cognitive dysfunction syndrome.

Decisions and Decisional Needs of Canadians From all Provinces and Territories During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Population-Based Cross-sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: Never before COVID-19 had Canadians faced making health-related decisions in a context of significant uncertainty. However, little is known about which type of decisions and the types of difficulties that they faced. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the health-related decisions and decisional needs of Canadians. METHODS: Our study was codesigned by researchers and knowledge users (eg, patients, clinicians). Informed by the CHERRIES (the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) reporting guideline, we conducted 2 online surveys of random samples drawn from the Leger consumer panel of 400,000 Canadians. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) who received or were receiving any health services in the past 12 months for themselves (adults) or for their child (parent) or senior with cognitive impairment (caregiver). We assessed decisions and decisional needs using questions informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, including decisional conflict and decision regret using the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), respectively. Descriptive statistics were conducted for adults who had decided for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Significant decisional conflict (SDC) was defined as a total DCS score of >37.5 out of 100, and significant decision regret was defined as a total DRS score of >25 out of 100. RESULTS: From May 18 to June 4, 2021, 14,459 adults and 6542 parents/caregivers were invited to participate. The invitation view rate was 15.5% (2236/14,459) and 28.3% (1850/6542); participation rate, 69.3% (1549/2236) and 28.7% (531/1850); and completion rate, 97.3% (1507/1549) and 95.1% (505/531), respectively. The survey was completed by 1454 (97.3%) adults and 438 (95.1%) parents/caregivers in English (1598/1892, 84.5%) or French (294/1892, 15.5%). Respondents from all 10 Canadian provinces and the northern territories represented a range of ages, education levels, civil statuses, ethnicities, and annual household income. Of 1892 respondents, 541 (28.6%) self-identified as members of marginalized groups. The most frequent decisions were (adults vs parents/caregivers) as follows: COVID-19 vaccination (490/1454, 33.7%, vs 87/438, 19.9%), managing a health condition (253/1454, 17.4%, vs 47/438, 10.7%), other COVID-19 decisions (158/1454, 10.9%, vs 85/438, 19.4%), mental health care (128/1454, 8.8%, vs 27/438, 6.2%), and medication treatments (115/1454, 7.9%, vs 23/438, 5.3%). Caregivers also reported decisions about moving family members to/from nursing or retirement homes (48/438, 11.0%). Adults (323/1454, 22.2%) and parents/caregivers (95/438, 21.7%) had SDC. Factors making decisions difficult were worrying about choosing the wrong option (557/1454, 38.3%, vs 184/438, 42.0%), worrying about getting COVID-19 (506/1454, 34.8%, vs 173/438, 39.5%), public health restrictions (427/1454, 29.4%, vs 158/438, 36.1%), information overload (300/1454, 20.6%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), difficulty separating misinformation from scientific evidence (297/1454, 20.4%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), and difficulty discussing decisions with clinicians (224/1454, 15.4%, vs 51/438, 11.6%). For 1318 (90.6%) adults and 366 (83.6%) parents/caregivers who had decided, 353 (26.8%) and 125 (34.2%) had significant decision regret, respectively. In addition, 1028 (50%) respondents made their decision alone without considering the opinions of clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, Canadians who responded to the survey faced several new health-related decisions. Many reported unmet decision-making needs, resulting in SDC and decision regret. Interventions can be designed to address their decisional needs and support patients facing new health-related decisions.

Patient-centered outcomes for gastrointestinal cancer care: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Following a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

Ethical considerations for engaging frail and seriously ill patients as partners in research: sub-analysis of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The commitment to engage patients as partners in research has been described as a political, moral and ethical imperative. Researchers feel ill-equipped to deal with potential ethical implications of engaging patients as partners. The aim of this study is to identify the ethical considerations related to engaging frail and seriously ill (FSI) patients as partners in research. METHODS: We conducted a sub-analysis of a prior systematic review of 30 studies that engaged FSI patients as partners in research. Studies were included if they reported ethical considerations associated with partnering. We performed deductive content analysis, data were categorized according to Beauchamp and Childress' Principles of Biomedical Ethics (2019): autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included. Common ethical considerations reported in relation to the principles were: autonomy - promoting desired level of involvement, addressing relational and intellectual power, facilitating knowledge and understanding of research; non-maleficence - protection from financial burden, physical and emotional suffering; beneficence - putting things right for others, showing value-added, and supporting patient-partners; and, justice - achieving appropriate representation, mutual respect for contributions, and distributing risks and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: When partnering with FSI patients, research teams need to establish shared values and ensure processes are in place to identify and address ethical issues. Researchers and patients should work together to clarify the intent and outcomes of the partnership, actively address power differentials, recognize and minimize the potential for unintended harm, and strive to maximize the benefits of partnership. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for the original systematic review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019127994).

Quality of telephone-based cancer symptom management by nurses: a quality improvement project.

PURPOSE: To determine the quality of cancer symptom management when evidence from clinical practice guidelines are used in telephone-based oncology nursing services. METHODS: Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, we conducted a quality improvement (QI) project focused on "monitoring knowledge use" (e.g., use of practice guides) and "measuring outcomes." In 2016, 15 Pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) practice guides that synthesize evidence from guidelines were implemented with training for all oncology nurses at a regional ambulatory oncology program. Eighteen months post-implementation, Symptom Management Analysis Tool (SMAT) was used to analyze audio-recorded calls and related documentation of cancer symptom management. RESULTS: Of 113 audio-recorded calls, 66 were COSTaRS symptoms (58%), 43 other symptoms (38%), and 4 medically complex situations (4%). Of 66 recorded calls, 63 (95%) were documented. Average SMAT quality score was 71% (range 21-100%) for audio-recordings and 63% (range 19-100%) for documentation of calls. COSTaRS practice guide use was documented in 33% calls. For these calls, average SMAT quality scores were 74% with COSTaRS versus 69% without COSTaRS for audio-recording and 73% (range 33-100%) with COSTaRS versus 58% without COSTaRS for documentation. Patient outcomes indicated symptom was resolved (38%), worse (25%), unchanged (3%), or unknown (33%). Eight patients (13%) had an ED visit within 14 days post that was related to the symptom discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of nurses indicated use of COSTaRS practice guides. There were higher quality symptom management scores when COSTaRS use was reported. Nurses documented less than what they discussed.

Feasibility of Rapidly Developing and Widely Disseminating Patient Decision Aids to Respond to Urgent Decisional Needs due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

To meet urgent decisional needs of retirement/nursing home residents and their families, our interdisciplinary stakeholder team rapidly developed and disseminated patient decision aids (PtDAs) regarding leaving one's residence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The development steps were as follows: identify urgent decisional needs, develop PtDAs using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework template and minimal International PtDA Standards, obtain stakeholder feedback, broadly disseminate, and incorporate user feedback. Within 2 wk, we developed 2 PtDAs for retirement and nursing home living environments that were informed by decisional needs (identified from public responses to related media reports), current pandemic regulations/guidance, and recent systematic reviews. Within 3 wk of their dissemination (websites, international PtDA inventory, Twitter, Facebook, media interviews), the PtDAs were downloaded 10,000 times, and user feedback was positive. Our expert team showed feasible rapid development and wide dissemination of PtDAs to respond to urgent decisional needs. Development efficiencies included access to a well-tested theory-based PtDA template, recent evidence syntheses, and values-based public responses to media reports. Future research includes methods for rapidly collecting user feedback, facilitating implementation, and measuring use and outcomes.

Quality of telephone nursing services for adults with cancer and related non-emergent visits to the emergency department.

A quality improvement project was conducted to determine the quality of telephone nursing for patients with cancer symptoms. Eligible patients were ones who telephoned the nurse about cancer symptom(s) within four weeks prior to an emergency department (ED) visit not requiring hospital admission. Experienced oncology nurses extracting data indicated appropriateness of ED visits and opportunities for improvement. The Symptom Management Analysis Tool was used to analyze nurse documentation. For 77 patients, 87% ED visits occurred within four days of calls about symptoms (e.g., pain, breathlessness, constipation, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting) and 91% could have been managed by more complete telephone assessment and/or an urgent clinic visit. Quality of nurse documentation revealed few patients were assessed adequately (38%), received any symptom-specific medication review (49%), or were guided in self-care strategies (17%). There was low-quality telephone symptom management by nurses and a need for alternative options for patients requiring urgent face-to-face assessments. Our findings highlight a gap in use of guidelines for informing telephone symptom management.

Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The expectation to include patients as partners in research has steadily gained momentum. The vulnerability of frail and/or seriously ill patients provides additional complexity and may deter researchers from welcoming individuals from this patient population onto their teams. The aim was to synthesize the evidence on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as research partners across the research cycle. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. A search strategy included MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO from database inception to April, 2019. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research reporting on the engagement of frail and/or seriously ill patients as partners on research teams. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise study quality. Narrative analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Of 8763 citations, 30 were included. Most studies included individuals with cancer on the research team (60%). Barriers included: lack of time and resources (50%), discontinuity in contribution (37%), and concerns for well-being (33%). Facilitators included: trust and mutual respect (60%), structural accessibility (57%), flexibility in timing and methods of engagement (43%), and attention to care and comfort, (33%). Perceived impacts for patients included: renewed personal sense of agency (37%) and emotional/peer support (37%). Impacts for researchers included sensitization to the lived experience of disease (57%) and an increased appreciation of the benefits of patient engagement (23%). Research design, execution, and outcomes, developed with patients, were deemed more suitable, relevant and reflective of patients' priorities. CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging evidence to suggest that research partnerships with frail and/or seriously ill patients can be achieved successfully. Patients mostly report benefit from partnering with research teams. Frailty and/or serious illness do present legitimate concerns for their well-being but appear to be successfully mitigated when researchers ensure that the purpose of engagement is well-defined, the timing and methods of engagement are flexible, and the practical and emotional needs of patient partners are addressed throughout the process. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019127994).