The impact of cognitive biases, mental models, and mindsets on leadership and change in the health system.

Understanding how cognitive biases, mental models, and mindsets impact leadership in health systems is essential. This article supports the notion of cognitive biases as flawed thinking or cognitive traps which negatively influence leadership. Mental models that do not fit with current evidence limit our ability to comprehend and respond to system issues. Resulting mindsets affect cognition, behaviour, and decision-making. Metacognition is critical. The wicked problems in today's complex health system require leaders and everyone involved to elevate their personal, organizational, and disciplinary perspectives to a systems level. Three examples of mental models/mindsets are reviewed. They do not change simply because we wish or will them to. The first step is being aware of what they are and how they impact our thinking and decision-making. Some tips for managing these traps are offered as examples of how to challenge our leadership approach in the health system.

The challenge of cognitive science for medical diagnosis.

The historical tendency to view medicine as both an art and a science may have contributed to a disinclination among clinicians towards cognitive science. In particular, this has had an impact on the approach towards the diagnostic process which is a barometer of clinical decision-making behaviour and is increasingly seen as a yardstick of clinician calibration and performance. The process itself is more complicated and complex than was previously imagined, with multiple variables that are difficult to predict, are interactive, and show nonlinearity. They appear to characterise a complex adaptive system. Many aspects of the diagnostic process, including the psychophysics of signal detection and discrimination, ergonomics, probability theory, decision analysis, factor analysis, causal analysis and more recent developments in judgement and decision-making (JDM), especially including the domain of heuristics and cognitive and affective biases, appear fundamental to a good understanding of it. A preliminary analysis of factors such as manifestness of illness and others that may impede clinicians' awareness and understanding of these issues is proposed here. It seems essential that medical trainees be explicitly and systematically exposed to specific areas of cognitive science during the undergraduate curriculum, and learn to incorporate them into clinical reasoning and decision-making. Importantly, this understanding is needed for the development of cognitive bias mitigation and improved calibration of JDM in clinical practice.

Homelessness and Emergency Department Use: Wait Time Disparities Across Triage Acuity Levels.

Introduction Certain patient groups perceive specific barriers to accessing primary care, resulting in increased emergency department (ED) use for non-emergency conditions. There is evidence coming from other countries that homeless people are treated differently in accessing emergency services. Examination of ED wait time by demographic characteristics provides pertinent information to identify subgroups that are more subject to the consequences or causes of access block and delayed treatment.  Methods We analyzed five years of Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) visit records of the largest tertiary care center in Atlantic Canada. The wait time from triage to seeing a physician was the outcome, housing status was the main exposure, and age and gender were the predictors. Quantile regressions were carried out to identify the influence of homeless visits in meeting the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) wait time benchmarks for each Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) level. The classification and regression tree method was used to quantify and classify the demographic subgroups contributing to wait time disparities across CTAS levels. Results Homeless visit median wait times that exceeded the three-hour CAEP benchmark were significantly longer for urgent (by 40 minutes, CI: 25-55), semi-urgent (by 31 minutes, CI: 17-45), and non-urgent (by 57 minutes, CI: 25-89) than acuity level-matched domiciled visit wait times. At the 50th percentile, one-hour benchmark homeless triaged as semi-urgent waited (median=20 minutes, CI: 12-28) longer, and no other triage-level differences were found at this benchmark. Homeless emergent-level visits that exceeded the three-hour benchmark were 28 minutes, on average, shorter than domiciled patients of the same acuity level. Homeless females above 40 stayed the longest for non-urgent care (mean=173 minutes), 82 minutes longer (p=0.0001) than age-gender-acuity level-matched domiciled patients. Homelessness was the most prominent ED wait time classifier for non-urgent, ED visits. Overall, homeless patients triaged as CTAS-5 waited 30 minutes longer (p=0.0001) than domiciled patients triaged as CTAS-5. Homeless male 16-20-year-olds waited the shortest time of 72 minutes.  Conclusion Homelessness-related wait time disparities exist in the low acuity non-urgent-level ED visits more than in the other levels, supporting the theory that lack of primary care access is a driver of ED use in this group. Our acuity level analysis supports that homeless people of a certain age (older) and gender groups (female) wait longer than their age-gender-matched domiciled patients to be seen by a physician in low acuity level presentations. Given the pattern of the homeless being seen earlier or statistically similar in emergent-level visits compared to matched domiciled patients and that 16-20-year-old homeless males were seen on average within 72 minutes (the shortest mean wait time reported for the triage level CTAS-5), we decline the notion of discrimination at the study site ED. If homeless patients' non-urgent needs were met elsewhere, pressure on the ED to meet benchmarks might be reduced.

Discharge communication practices in pediatric emergency care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of children receiving care in the emergency department (ED) are discharged home, making discharge communication a key component of quality emergency care. Parents must have the knowledge and skills to effectively manage their child's ongoing care at home. Parental fatigue and stress, health literacy, and the fragmented nature of communication in the ED setting may contribute to suboptimal parent comprehension of discharge instructions and inappropriate ED return visits. The aim of this study was to examine how and why discharge communication works in a pediatric ED context and develop recommendations for practice, policy, and research. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published and gray literature. We searched electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, and Embase up to July 2017. Policies guiding discharge communication were also sought from pediatric emergency networks in Canada, USA, Australia, and the UK. Eligible studies included children less than 19 years of age with a focus on discharge communication in the ED as the primary objective. Included studies were appraised using relevant Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists. Textual summaries, content analysis, and conceptual mapping assisted with exploring relationships within and between data. We implemented an integrated knowledge translation approach to strengthen the relevancy of our research questions and assist with summarizing our findings. RESULTS: A total of 5095 studies were identified in the initial search, with 75 articles included in the final review. Included studies focused on a range of illness presentations and employed a variety of strategies to deliver discharge instructions. Education was the most common intervention and the majority of studies targeted parent knowledge or behavior. Few interventions attempted to change healthcare provider knowledge or behavior. Assessing barriers to implementation, identifying relevant ED contextual factors, and understanding provider and patient attitudes and beliefs about discharge communication were identified as important factors for improving discharge communication practice. CONCLUSION: Existing literature examining discharge communication in pediatric emergency care varies widely. A theory-based approach to intervention design is needed to improve our understanding regarding discharge communication practice. Strengthening discharge communication in a pediatric emergency context presents a significant opportunity for improving parent comprehension and health outcomes for children. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007106.

Procedural sedation by advanced care paramedics for emergency gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: At the QEII Health Sciences Centre Emergency Department (ED) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, advanced care paramedics (ACPs) perform procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for many indications, including orthopedic procedures. We have begun using ACPs as sedationists for emergent upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. This study compares ACP-performed ED PSA for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures in terms of adverse events, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use. METHODS: A data set was built from an ED PSA quality control database matching 61 UGI endoscopy PSAs to 183 orthopedic PSAs by propensity scores calculated using age, gender, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. Outcomes assessed were hypotension (systolic BP30 sec), vomiting, arrhythmias, death, airway intervention, vasopressor requirement, and PSA medication use. RESULTS: UGI endoscopy patients experienced hypotension more frequently than orthopedic patients (OR=4.11, CI: 2.05-8.22) and required airway repositioning less often (OR=0.24, CI: 0.10-0.59). They received ketamine more frequently (OR=15.7, CI: 4.75-67.7) and fentanyl less often (OR=0.30, CI: 0.15-0.63) than orthopedic patients. Four endoscopy patients received phenylephrine, and one required intubation. No patient died in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In ACP-led sedation for UGI endoscopy and orthopedic procedures, adverse events were rare with the notable exception of hypotension, which was more frequent in the endoscopy group. Only endoscopy patients required vasopressor treatment and intubation. We provide preliminary evidence that ACPs can manage ED PSA for emergent UGI endoscopy, although priorities must shift from pain control to hemodynamic optimization.

Intravenous cefazolin plus oral probenecid versus oral cephalexin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine if cephalexin 500 mg orally four times daily was non-inferior to cefazolin 2 g intravenously daily plus probenecid 1 g orally daily in the management of patients with uncomplicated mild-moderate skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) presenting to the ED. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, double dummy-blind, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial conducted at two tertiary care teaching hospitals in Canada. Patients were enrolled if they presented to the ED with an uncomplicated SSTI, and randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to oral cephalexin or intravenous cefazolin plus oral probenecid for up to 7 days. The primary outcome was failure of therapy at 72 hours. Clinical cure at 7 days, intravenous to oral medication transition admission to hospital and adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: 206 patients were randomised with 104 patients in the cephalexin group and 102 in the cefazolin and probenecid group. The proportion of patients failing therapy at 72 hours was similar between the treatment groups (4.2% and 6.1%, risk difference 1.9%, 95% CI -3.7% to 7.6%). Clinical cure at 7 days was not significantly different (100% and 97.7%, risk difference -2.3%, 95% CI -6.7% to 0.8%). CONCLUSION: Cephalexin at appropriate doses appears to be a safe and effective alternative to outpatient parenteral cefazolin in the treatment of uncomplicated mild-moderate SSTIs who present to the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01029782; Results.

Cognitive bias in health leaders.

Cognitive bias can be a serious impediment to rational decision-making by health leaders. We use a hypothetical case study to introduce some basic concepts of bias with examples of mitigation strategies. We argue that the effect of biases should be considered when making every significant administrative decision.

Emergency department procedural sedation for primary electrical cardioversion - a comparison with procedural sedations for other reasons.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia treated in the emergency department (ED), with primary electrical cardioversion (PEC) the preferred method of rhythm control. Anecdotally, patients undergoing ED procedural sedation (EDPS) for PEC differ from those requiring EDPS for other procedures: they are at higher risk of adverse events, and require fewer drugs and lower doses. We attempt to verify this using an EDPS registry at a Canadian, tertiary care teaching hospital. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients that underwent EDPS for the period of June 2006 to September 2014. We compared demographics, medication use and intra-procedural adverse events between those receiving EDPS for PEC for AF compared to that for other indications. We report the asssociation between AEs and predictors using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 4 867 patients were included, 714 for PEC for AF and 4 153 for other indications. PEC patients were more likely male (58.5% vs. 47.1%), older (59.5 years vs. 48.1 years), and less likely to be ASA I (46.6% vs. 69.0%). PEC patients received smaller doses of propofol and less likely to receive adjuvant analgesic therapy (11.5% vs. 78.2%). PEC patients were more likely to experience hypotension (27.6% vs. 16.5%) but respiratory AEs (apnea, hypoxia and airway intervention) were not different. CONCLUSION: EDPS for PEC differs from that conducted for other purposes: patients tend to be less healthy, receive smaller doses of medication and more likely to suffer hypotension without an increase in respiratory AEs. These factors should be considered when performing EDPS.

Capnography versus standard monitoring for emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used frequently in the emergency department (ED) to facilitate painful procedures and interventions. Capnography, a monitoring modality widely used in operating room and endoscopy suite settings, is being used more frequently in the ED setting with the goal of reducing cardiopulmonary adverse events. As opposed to settings outside the ED, there is currently no consensus on whether the addition of capnography to standard monitoring modalities reduces adverse events in the ED setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether capnography in addition to standard monitoring (pulse oximetry, blood pressure and cardiac monitoring) is more effective than standard monitoring alone to prevent cardiorespiratory adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation, hypotension, emesis, and pulmonary aspiration) in ED patients undergoing PSA. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL to 9 August 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials of ED patients requiring PSA with no language restrictions. We searched meta-registries (www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicalstudyresults.org, and clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing trials (February 2016). We contacted the primary authors of included studies as well as scientific advisors of capnography device manufacturers to identify unpublished studies (February 2016). We handsearched conference abstracts of four organizations from 2010 to 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any RCT or quasi-randomized trial comparing capnography and standard monitoring to standard monitoring alone for ED patients requiring PSA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality for the 'Risk of bias' tables. An independent researcher extracted data for any included studies that our authors were involved in. We contacted authors of included studies for incomplete data when applicable. We used Review Manager 5 to combine data and calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both random-effects and fixed-effect models. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three trials (κ = 1.00) involving 1272 participants. Comparing the capnography group to the standard monitoring group, there were no differences in the rates of oxygen desaturation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.63; n = 1272, 3 trials; moderate quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.69; n = 986, 1 trial; moderate quality evidence). There was only one episode of emesis recorded without significant difference between the groups (RR 3.10, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.88, n = 986, 1 trial; moderate quality evidence). The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate with downgrades primarily due to heterogeneity and reporting bias.There were no differences in the rate of airway interventions performed (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.69; n = 1272, 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). In the subgroup analysis, we found a higher rate of airway interventions for adults in the capnography group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.79; n = 1118, 2 trials; moderate quality evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome of 12. Although statistical heterogeneity was reduced, there was moderate quality of evidence due to outcome definition heterogeneity and limited reporting bias. None of the studies reported recovery time. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of convincing evidence that the addition of capnography to standard monitoring in ED PSA reduces the rate of clinically significant adverse events. Evidence was deemed to be of moderate quality due to population and outcome definition heterogeneity and limited reporting bias. Our review was limited by the small number of clinical trials in this setting.

Paramedic Recognition of Sepsis in the Prehospital Setting: A Prospective Observational Study.

Background. Patients with sepsis benefit from early diagnosis and treatment. Accurate paramedic recognition of sepsis is important to initiate care promptly for patients who arrive by Emergency Medical Services. Methods. Prospective observational study of adult patients (age ≥ 16 years) transported by paramedics to the emergency department (ED) of a Canadian tertiary hospital. Paramedic identification of sepsis was assessed using a novel prehospital sepsis screening tool developed by the study team and compared to blind, independent documentation of ED diagnoses by attending emergency physicians (EPs). Specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Results. Overall, 629 patients were included in the analysis. Sepsis was identified by paramedics in 170 (27.0%) patients and by EPs in 71 (11.3%) patients. Sensitivity of paramedic sepsis identification compared to EP diagnosis was 73.2% (95% CI 61.4-83.0), while specificity was 78.8% (95% CI 75.2-82.2). The accuracy of paramedic identification of sepsis was 78.2% (492/629, 52 true positive, 440 true negative). Positive and negative predictive values were 30.6% (95% CI 23.8-38.1) and 95.9% (95% CI 93.6-97.5), respectively. Conclusion. Using a novel prehospital sepsis screening tool, paramedic recognition of sepsis had greater specificity than sensitivity with reasonable accuracy.

End-tidal capnometry during emergency department procedural sedation and analgesia: a randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized trial was undertaken to evaluate the utility of adding end-tidal capnometry (ETC) to pulse oximetry (PO) in patients undergoing procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The patients were randomized to monitoring with or without ETC in addition to the current standard of care. Primary endpoints included respiratory adverse events, with secondary endpoints of level of sedation, hypotension, other PSA-related adverse events and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 986 patients, 501 were randomized to usual care and 485 to additional ETC monitoring. In this series, 48% of the patients were female, with a mean age of 46 years. Orthopedic manipulations (71%), cardioversion (12%) and abscess incision and drainage (12%) were the most common procedures, and propofol and fentanyl were the sedative/analgesic combination used for most patients. There was no difference in patients experiencing de-saturation (SaO2<90%) between the two groups; however, patients in the ETC group were more likely to require airway repositioning (12.9% vs. 9.3%, P=0.003). Hypotension (SBP<100 mmHg or <85 mmHg if baseline <100 mmHg) was observed in 16 (3.3%) patients in the ETC group and 7 (1.4%) in the control group (P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ETC does not appear to change any clinically significant outcomes. We found an increased incidence of the use of airway repositioning maneuvers and hypotension in cases where ETC was used. We do not believe that ETC should be recommended as a standard of care for the monitoring of patients undergoing PSA.