Impact of Standardized Multidisciplinary Critical Care Training on Confidence with Critical Illness and Attitudes Towards Interprofessional Education and Multidisciplinary Care.

INTRODUCTION: The Fundamental Critical Care Support Course (FCCS) is a standardized multidisciplinary program designed to educate participants on the basics of identification and management of patients with critical illness. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of FCCS participation on confidence in the assessment and management of critically ill patients and attitudes towards multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care in a multidisciplinary group of participants. METHODS: Participants enrolled in the FCCS course from May 2018 to November 2019 were solicited to participate in a series of surveys evaluating their course experience and confidence in critical care. Attitudes towards multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care were evaluated using the Student Perceptions of Interprofessional Clinical Education-Revised Instrument version 2 (SPICE-R2) tool. A prospective pre- and post-design with a self-report survey including retrospective pre-training assessment and a 3-month follow-up was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statics and non-parametric methods. RESULTS: 321 (97.9%) of the course participants enrolled in the study and completed the confidence survey and SPICE-R2 tool pre-course. Nurses (113, 35.4%) and physicians (110, 34.4%) made up the largest groups of participants, although physician assistants and paramedics were also well represented. Confidence in recognition and management of critical illness significantly improved across all studied domains after course completion, with the mean total confidence score improving from 32.96 pre-course to 41.10 post-course, P < 0.001. Attitudes towards multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care also improved (mean score 41.37 pre-course vs 42.71 post-course, P < 0.001), although pre-course numbers were higher than expected which limited the significance to only certain domains. DISCUSSION: In a multidisciplinary group, completion of FCCS training led to increased confidence in all aspects of critical illness measured. A modest increase in attitudes regarding multidisciplinary education and interprofessional care was also demonstrated. Further study is needed to assess whether this increased confidence translates to improvements in patient care and outcomes.

A "sludge audit" for health system colorectal cancer screening services.

OBJECTIVES: "Sludge," or the frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to attain what they want or need, is an unexplored health care delivery factor that may contribute to deficiencies in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We piloted a method to identify and quantify sludge in a southeastern US health system's delivery of CRC screening services. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods sludge audit. METHODS: We collected and analyzed quantitative (insurance claims, electronic health record, and administrative files) and qualitative (stakeholder interviews and process observations) data associated with CRC screening for instances of sludge. Because they contribute to sludge and reduce system capacity for high-value screening, we also evaluated low-value CRC screening processes. RESULTS: Although specific results were likely amplified by effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sludge audit revealed important areas for improvement. A 60.4% screening rate was observed. Approximately half of screening orders were not completed. The following categories of sludge were identified: communication, time, technology, administrative tasks, paperwork, and low-value care. For example, wait times for screening colonoscopy were substantial, duplicate orders were common, and some results were not accessible in the electronic health record. Of completed screenings, 32% were low-value and 38% were associated with low-value preoperative testing. There was evidence of a differential negative impact of sludge to vulnerable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our sludge audit method identified and quantified multiple instances of sludge in a health system's CRC screening processes. Sludge audits can help organizations to systematically evaluate and reduce sludge for more effective and equitable CRC screening.

Using a human factors-centric approach to development and testing of a face shield designed for health care workers: A COVID-19 case study for process and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Face shields are a critical piece of personal protective equipment and their comfort impacts compliant use and thus protectiveness. Optimal design criteria for face shield use in healthcare environments are limited. We attempt to identify factors affecting face shield usability and to test and optimize a face shield for comfort and function in health care settings. METHODS: A broad range of workers in a large health care system were surveyed regarding face shield features and usability. Quantitative and qualitative analysis informed the development of iterative prototypes which were tested against existing shields. Iterative testing and redesign utilized expert insight and feedback from participant focus groups to inform subsequent prototype designs. RESULTS: From 1,648 responses, 6 key elements were identified: ability to adjust tension, shifting load bearing from the temples, anti-fogging, ventilation, freedom of movement, and durability. Iterative prototypes received consistently excellent feedback based on use in the clinical environment, demonstrating incremental improvement. CONCLUSION: We defined elements of face shield design necessary for usability in health care and produced a highly functional face shield that satisfies frontline provider criteria and Emergency Use Authorization standards set by the Food and Drug Administration. Integrating human factors principles into rapid-cycle prototyping for personal protective equipment is feasible and valuable.

Measurement of physiological responses to acute stress in multiple occupations: A systematic review and implications for front line healthcare providers.

Optimizing performance of individuals in acutely stressful work-related situations requires a deeper understanding of the interaction between the demands of the stimuli and an individual's associated physiological response. Identifying these responses is particularly germane for healthcare professionals, who experience episodes of acute stress on a regular basis. The purpose of this review was to examine and synthesize empirical literature to identify studies assessing physiological responses to acute stress, determine common methods for measuring acute stress in near real-time, and identify common research designs employed across industries. A modified PRISMA approach was followed. Systematic searches were conducted of four databases (PsycINFO, Medline, PubMed, and Turning Research into Practice [TRIP]) to access eligibility. Reference list searches and a hand search were also conducted to identify other articles suitable for inclusion. Studies selected examined an acute physiological response while participants were engaged in a stress-inducing task. Twenty-two articles were included. Fifteen (68.2%) were centered on the human service industry while only three (13.6%) focused on healthcare professionals. Half of the studies incorporated a simulation into the research design while only two (9.1%) articles looked at physiological responses in real-world settings. Heart rate and cortisol emerged as the most common physiological measures collected. This review demonstrates that acute stress is primarily assessed retrospectively, and that there is a pragmatic gap in methodological approach, with many data collection methods inappropriate for the healthcare environment. Future research should capitalize on advancements in sensor technology to passively examine acute stress in healthcare professionals.

Classification and team response to nonroutine events occurring during pediatric trauma resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Errors directly causing serious harm are rare during pediatric trauma resuscitation, limiting the use of adverse outcome analysis for performance improvement in this setting. Errors not causing harm because of mitigation or chance may have similar causation and are more frequent than those causing adverse outcomes. Analyzing these error types is an alternative to adverse outcome analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify errors of any type during pediatric trauma resuscitation and evaluate team responses to their occurrence. METHODS: Errors identified using video analysis were classified as errors of omission or commission and selection errors using input from trauma experts. The responses to error types and error frequency based on patient and event features were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-nine resuscitations were reviewed, identifying 337 errors (range, 2-26 per resuscitation). The most common errors were related to cervical spine stabilization (n = 93, 27.6%). Errors of omission (n = 135) and commission (n = 106) were more common than errors of selection (n = 96). Although 35.9% of all errors were acknowledged and compensation occurred after 43.6%, no response (acknowledgement or compensation) was observed after 51.3% of errors. Errors of omission and commission were more often acknowledged (40.7% and 39.6% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively) and compensated for (50.4% and 47.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively) than selection errors. Response differences between errors of omission and commission were not observed. The number of errors and the number of high-risk errors that occurred did not differ based on patient or event features. CONCLUSIONS: Errors are common during pediatric trauma resuscitation. Teams did not respond to most errors, although differences in team response were observed between error types. Determining causation of errors may be an approach for identifying latent safety threats contributing to adverse outcomes during pediatric trauma resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.