The role of multidisciplinary team meeting histopathology review and its impact on revised reports: Analysis of a national quality improvement program.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted the first Irish national study assessing the value of multidisciplinary team meeting review in pathology practice and its impact on error detection before treatment. METHODS: Public and private pathology laboratories across Ireland capture their quality activities using standardized codes and submit their data to a centralized database (National Quality Assurance Intelligence System) overseen by the National Histopathology Quality Improvement (NHQI) program. A total of 1,437,746 histopathology and cytopathology cases submitted to the NHQI program over a 60-month period (January 2017 to December 2021) were included in this study. Cases were analyzed with respect to multidisciplinary team meeting peer review and the presence of a revised report (amended or corrected report), a surrogate marker for error detection before treatment. RESULTS: Across all cases assessed, 13.74% (197,587) underwent multidisciplinary team meeting discussion. Cases discussed at review had a statistically significantly higher rate of revised reports (1.25% [2470]) than cases not discussed at review (0.16% [1959]) (Pearson χ2, 6619.26; P < .0001; odds ratio, 8.00 [95% CI, 7.54-8.49]). Overall, multidisciplinary team meeting review made it 8 times more likely to detect an error before treatment. Cancer resections had the highest rate of review at 55.29% (46,806), reflecting the prioritization of oncology case discussion at review meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary team meeting review process plays a valuable role in pathology error detection. A pathologist's participation in the review process comes with a clinically significant workload that needs to be recognized for future workforce planning. This study highlighted the positive role pathologists play in enhancing patient safety.

A European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine: a modified Delphi study.

PURPOSE: Geriatric Emergency Medicine (GEM) focuses on delivering optimal care to (sub)acutely ill older people. This involves a multidisciplinary approach throughout the whole healthcare chain. However, the underpinning evidence base is weak and it is unclear which research questions have the highest priority. The aim of this study was to provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions among GEM professionals throughout Europe. METHODS: A two-stage modified Delphi approach was used. In stage 1, an online survey was administered to various professionals working in GEM both in the Emergency Department (ED) and other healthcare settings throughout Europe to make an inventory of potential research questions. In the processing phase, research questions were screened, categorised, and validated by an expert panel. Subsequently, in stage 2, remaining research questions were ranked based on relevance using a second online survey administered to the same target population, to identify the top 10 prioritised research questions. RESULTS: In response to the first survey, 145 respondents submitted 233 potential research questions. A total of 61 research questions were included in the second stage, which was completed by 176 respondents. The question with the highest priority was: Is implementation of elements of CGA (comprehensive geriatric assessment), such as screening for frailty and geriatric interventions, effective in improving outcomes for older patients in the ED? CONCLUSION: This study presents a top 10 of high-priority research questions for a European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine. The list of research questions may serve as guidance for researchers, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects.

A consensus building exercise to determine research priorities for silver trauma.

BACKGROUND: Emergency care research into 'Silver Trauma', which is simply defined as major trauma consequent upon relatively minor injury mechanisms, is facing many challenges including that at present, there is no clear prioritisation of the issues. This study aimed to determine the top research priorities to guide future research. METHODS: This consensus-based prioritization exercise used a three-stage modified Delphi technique. The study consisted of an idea generating (divergent) first round, a ranking evaluation in the second round, and a (convergent) consensus meeting in the third round. RESULTS: A total of 20 research questions advanced to the final round of this study. After discussing the importance and clinical significance of each research question, five research questions were prioritised by the experts; the top three research priorities were: (1). What are older people's preferred goals of trauma care? (2). Beyond the Emergency Department (ED), what is the appropriate combined geriatric and trauma care? (3). Do older adults benefit from access to trauma centres? If so, do older trauma patients have equitable access to trauma centre compared to younger adults? CONCLUSION: The results of this study will assist clinicians, researchers, and organisations that are interested in silver trauma in guiding their future efforts and funding toward addressing the identified research priorities.

What older people want from emergency care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the expectations and preferred outcomes from emergency care among older people or their caregivers. METHODS: A review protocol was registered. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, BNI, AgeInfo and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in their full date ranges to September 2018. Included articles were hand-searched for further citations. Citations were screened for (1) older people aged over 65 years, (2) ED settings and (3) reporting expectations or preferred outcomes for emergency care (as opposed to experience or satisfaction). Quality appraisal and data extraction of eligible articles were undertaken by two reviewers. Themes were synthesised through content analysis and described narratively. RESULTS: Older people wished to have prompt waiting times, efficient care, clear communication and comfortable environments. They had additional and unique expectations for holistic care and support in decision-making. The ED provoked a sense of vulnerability among older people who were likely to have had frailty. CONCLUSION: The lack of dominant themes among included studies suggests that older people should be treated as individuals rather than a homogenous group. Establishing individuals' preferred outcomes could improve person-centred care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018107050.