RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Spanish-speakers with non-English language preference and complex medical needs suffer disparities in quality of care, safety, and health outcomes. Communication challenges during prolonged hospitalizations for complex illnesses negatively influence how this group engages in their care and decision-making while hospitalized. Limited literature capturing the perspectives of Spanish-speaking patients in this context exists. Given the impact of language barriers on care and medical decision-making, this study documents the experiences of Spanish-speaking patients with NELP and hospitalized with complex care needs as well as caregivers and community leaders. METHODS: Using community-engaged recruitment strategies and semi-structured interviews and a focus group, we gathered insights from Spanish-speaking patients hospitalized for prolonged periods, caregivers, and community leaders from three geographic regions. Data were deidentified, transcribed, translated, coded in duplicate, and analyzed guided by grounded theory using NVivo. RESULTS: We interviewed 40 participants: 27 patients, 10 caregivers and 3 community leaders. We identified four major themes: (1) Disconnected experiences impeding interactions, communication, and decision-making (2) Inadequate interpreter services (3) Benefits and consequences of family at the bedside (4) Community -informed recommendations. CONCLUSION: The study showed that in-person interpreters were preferred to virtual interpreters; yet interpreter access was suboptimal. This resulted in ad hoc family interpretation. Participants noted language negatively impacted patient's hospital experience, including decreasing confidence in medical decision-making. Recommendations from patients, caregivers, and community leaders included expanding interpreter access, bolstering interpreter quality and accuracy, and increasing resources for patient education.
Assuntos
Cuidadores , Barreiras de Comunicação , Hispânico ou Latino , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Humanos , Cuidadores/psicologia , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hispânico ou Latino/psicologia , Idoso , Adulto , Tomada de Decisões , Grupos Focais , Hospitalização , Idioma , Entrevistas como Assunto , Idoso de 80 Anos ou maisRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To examine the healthcare utilization of patients with non-English language preference (NELP) who utilized a professional language interpreter (PLI) in the intensive care unit (ICU) compared to similar patients with NELP who did not utilize a PLI in the ICU. METHODS: Single center cohort study of patients with NELP with at least one ICU admission a large academic medical center in the U.S. Midwest (1/1/2008-12/31/2022). The first model examined ICU length-of-stay (LOS) using a negative binomial and the second model examined whether a patient was readmitted to the ICU using a logistic regression with each model controlling for PLI utilization and covariates. RESULTS: Patients with NELP who utilized a PLI in the ICU had 0.87-days longer in the ICU (p < 0.01) and had a 46 % decreased odds of being readmitted to the ICU (p < 0.01) than a comparable patient with NELP who did not utilize a PLI in the ICU. CONCLUSION: Providing patients with NELP with access to a PLI in the ICU can improve patient outcomes and reduce language barriers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These results can provide the justification to potentially increase PLI staffing levels or increase the access to existing PLIs for more patients with NELP in ICUs.
Assuntos
Barreiras de Comunicação , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Tradução , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto , Idioma , Idoso , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos , Estudos de Coortes , Proficiência Limitada em InglêsRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) presents new opportunities for the timely identification of patients at high risk of critical illness and the implementation of preventive strategies. This study aims to externally validate an EHR-based Elders Risk Assessment (ERA) score to identify older patients at high risk of future critical illness during a primary care visit. METHODS: This historical cohort study included patients aged ≥65 years who had primary care visits at Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN, between July 2019 and December 2021. The ERA score at the time of the primary care visit was used to predict critical illness, defined as death or ICU admission within 1 year of the visit. RESULTS: A total of 12,885 patients were included in the analysis. The median age at the time of the primary care visit was 75 years, with 44.6% being male. 93.7% of participants were White, and 64.2% were married. The median (25th, 75th percentile) ERA score was 4 (0, 9). 11.3% of study participants were admitted to the ICU or died within 1 year of the visit. The ERA score predicted critical illness within 1 year of a primary care visit with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83-0.85), which indicates good discrimination. An ERA score of 9 was identified as optimal for implementing and testing potential preventive strategies, with the odds ratio of having the primary outcome in patients with ERA score ≥9 being 11.33 (95%CI 9.98-12.87). CONCLUSIONS: This simple EHR-based risk assessment model can predict critical illness within 1 year of primary care visits in older patients. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for testing and implementation of preventive strategies to promote the well-being of older adults at risk of critical illness and its consequences.
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Avaliação Geriátrica , Humanos , Idoso , Masculino , Feminino , Estado Terminal/mortalidade , Medição de Risco/métodos , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Avaliação Geriátrica/métodos , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Estudos de Coortes , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
Hispanic populations face significant disparities in health and healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and sometimes further exacerbated these disparities. We conducted a multisite, retrospective cohort study of 6494 hospitalized adult patients admitted between March 2020 and January 2022 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from five sites including academic hospitals in MN, AZ, and FL and community hospitals in MN and WI. This is an ancillary project of the Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS) registry, supplemented by electronic health record data. We compared in-hospital mortality and length of stay outcomes between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations admitted with COVID-19 using propensity matched scores to account for imbalances in demographic and clinical covariables. Among a total of 6494 patients, 512 (7.9%) patients were reported deceased and 5982 (92.1%) alive at discharge. We did not find a statistically significant difference between in-hospital mortality nor length of stay between the two groups.
RESUMO
Background: Assessing perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines is essential for understanding vaccine hesitancy and for improving uptake during public health emergencies. In the complicated landscape of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and rampant misinformation, many individuals faced challenges during vaccination decision-making. The purpose of our mixed methods study is to elucidate factors affecting vaccine decision-making and to highlight the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines in diverse and underserved communities. Methods: This mixed methods study was conducted in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin between March and November 2021, combining a cross-sectional survey (n = 3593) and focus groups (n = 47). Results: The groups least likely to report receiving a vaccination were non-Hispanic Whites, Indigenous people, males, and those with moderate socioeconomic status (SES). Those indicating high and low SES reported similar vaccination uptake. Focus group data highlighted resistance to mandates, distrust, misinformation, and concerns about the rapid development surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines. Psychological reactance theory posits that strongly persuasive messaging and social pressure can be perceived as a threat to freedom, encouraging an individual to take action to restore that freedom. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that a subsection of participants felt pressured to get the vaccine, which led to weaker intentions to vaccinate. These results suggest that vaccine rollout strategies should be reevaluated to improve and facilitate informed decision-making.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Given limited critical care resources and an aging population, early interventions to prevent critical illness are vital. In this work, we measured post-implementation outcomes after introducing a novel electronic scoring system (Elders Risk Assessment-ERA) and a risk-factor checklist, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN), to detect older patients at high risk of critical illness in a primary care setting. METHODS: The study was conducted at a family medicine clinic in Kasson, MN. The ADAPT-ITT framework was used to modify the CERTAIN checklist for primary care during 2 co-design workshops involving interdisciplinary clinicians, held in April 2023. The ERA score and modified CERTAIN checklist were implemented between May and July 2023 and identify and assess all patients age ≥60 years at risk of critical illness during their primary care visits. Implementation outcomes were evaluated at the end of the study via an anonymous survey and EHR data extraction. RESULTS: Fourteen clinicians participated in 2 co-design workshops. A total of 19 clinicians participated in a post-pilot survey. All survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale. Mean acceptability of the ERA score and checklist was rated 3.35 (SD = 0.75) and 3.09 (SD = 0.64), respectively. Appropriateness had a mean rating of 3.38 (SD = 0.82) for the ERA score and 3.19 (SD = 0.59) for the checklist. Mean feasibility was rated 3.38(SD = 0.85) and 2.92 (SD = 0.76) for the ERA score and checklist, respectively. The adoption rate was 50% (19/38) among clinicians, but the reach was low at 17% (49/289) of eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study evaluated the implementation of an intervention that introduced the ERA score and CERTAIN checklist into a primary care practice. Results indicate moderate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ERA score, and similar ratings for the checklist, with slightly lower feasibility. While checklist adoption was moderate, reach was limited, indicating inconsistent use. RECOMMENDATIONS: We plan to use the open-ended resurvey responses to further modify the CERTAIN-FM checklist and implementation process. The ADAPT-ITT framework is a useful model for adapting the checklist to meet the primary care clinician needs.
Assuntos
Lista de Checagem , Estado Terminal , Humanos , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Projetos Piloto , Fatores de Risco , Medição de RiscoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Inpatients with language barriers and complex medical needs suffer disparities in quality of care, safety, and health outcomes. Although in-person interpreters are particularly beneficial for these patients, they are underused. We plan to use machine learning predictive analytics to reliably identify patients with language barriers and complex medical needs to prioritize them for in-person interpreters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study used stakeholder engagement through semi-structured interviews to understand the perceived risks and benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in this domain. Stakeholders included clinicians, interpreters, and personnel involved in caring for these patients or for organizing interpreters. Data were coded and analyzed using NVIVO software. RESULTS: We completed 49 interviews. Key perceived risks included concerns about transparency, accuracy, redundancy, privacy, perceived stigmatization among patients, alert fatigue, and supply-demand issues. Key perceived benefits included increased awareness of in-person interpreters, improved standard of care and prioritization for interpreter utilization; a streamlined process for accessing interpreters, empowered clinicians, and potential to overcome clinician bias. DISCUSSION: This is the first study that elicits stakeholder perspectives on the use of AI with the goal of improved clinical care for patients with language barriers. Perceived benefits and risks related to the use of AI in this domain, overlapped with known hazards and values of AI but some benefits were unique for addressing challenges with providing interpreter services to patients with language barriers. CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence to identify and prioritize patients for interpreter services has the potential to improve standard of care and address healthcare disparities among patients with language barriers.
Assuntos
Pacientes Internados , Idioma , Humanos , Inteligência Artificial , Barreiras de Comunicação , Pessoal Técnico de SaúdeRESUMO
In this qualitative study, we explored perspectives of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and their families on the Get to Know Me board (GTKMB). Of the 46 patients approached, 38 consented to participate. Of the 66 family members approached, 60 consented to participate. Most patients (26, 89%) and family members (52, 99%) expressed that GTKMB was important in recognizing patient's humanity. Most patients (20, 68%) and families (39, 74%) said that it helped to build a better relationship with the provider team. 60% of patients and families commented that the GTKMB was used as a platform by providers to interact with them. Up to 45 (85%) of the family members supported specific contents of the GTKMB. In structured interviews (11 patients, 7 family members), participants additionally commented on ways providers used the GTKMB to communicate, support patient's personhood, and on caveats in interacting with GTKMB. Critically ill patients and families found the GTKMB helpful in preserving personhood of patient, fostering communication, and building relationships with clinicians.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To adequately care for groups of acutely ill patients, clinicians maintain situational awareness to identify the most acute needs within the entire intensive care unit (ICU) population through constant reappraisal of patient data from electronic medical record and other information sources. Our objective was to understand the information and process requirements of clinicians caring for multiple ICU patients and how this information is used to support their prioritization of care among populations of acutely ill patients. Additionally, we wanted to gather insights on the organization of an Acute care multi-patient viewer (AMP) dashboard. METHODS: We conducted and audio-recorded semi-structured interviews of ICU clinicians who had worked with the AMP in three quaternary care hospitals. The transcripts were analyzed with open, axial, and selective coding. Data was managed using NVivo 12 software. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 clinicians and identified 5 main themes following data analysis: (1) strategies used to enable patient prioritization, (2) strategies used for optimizing task organization, (3) information and factors helpful for situational awareness within the ICU, (4) unrecognized or missed critical events and information, and (5) suggestions for AMP organization and content. Prioritization of critical care was largely determined by severity of illness and trajectory of patient clinical status. Important sources of information were communication with colleagues from the previous shift, bedside nurses, and patients, data from the electronic medical record and AMP, and physical presence and availability in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study explored ICU clinicians' information and process requirements to enable the prioritization of care among populations of acutely ill patients. Timely recognition of patients who need priority attention and intervention provides opportunities for improvement of critical care and for preventing catastrophic events in the ICU.
Assuntos
Cuidados Críticos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Comunicação , AtençãoRESUMO
25.6 Million people in the United States have Limited English Proficiency (LEP), defined as insufficient ability to read, write, or understand English. We will (1) Delineate the merits of approaching language as a social determinant of health, (2) highlight pertinent public health values and guidelines which are most relevant to the plight of populations with LEP and (3) Use the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of how a breakdown in public health ethics values created harm for populations and patients with LEP. We define a framework to tease out public health responsibilities given some populations' limited proficiency in a society's predominant language. The American Public Health Association (APHA) public health ethics core values serve as a framework to interrogate current practices. We use the COVID-19 case to illustrate gaps between health policy and healthcare disparities experienced by populations with LEP.
RESUMO
To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR). DESIGN: Single center randomized crossover study. SETTING: Quaternary care academic hospital. SUBJECTS: Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers. INTERVENTIONS: AMP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments-the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7-10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (-6.11; 95% CI, -7.91 to -4.30 min and -5.38; 95% CI, -7.56 to -3.20 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.54 min; p = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, -32.7 to -12.4 points; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.30; p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians' performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To conduct comparative cost analysis of hospital care for critically ill patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) versus patients with English proficiency (controls). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a historical cohort study using propensity matching at Mayo Clinic Rochester, a quaternary care academic center. We included hospitalized patients who had at least one admission to ICU during a 10-year period between 1/1/2008-12/31/2017. RESULTS: Due to substantial differences in baseline characteristics of the groups, propensity matching for the covariates age, sex, race, ethnicity, APACHE 3 score, and Charlson Comorbidity score was used, and we achieved the intended balance. The final cohort included 80,404 patients, 4,246 with LEP and 76,158 controls. Patients with LEP had higher costs during hospital admission to discharge, with a mean cost difference of $3861 (95% CI $822 to $6900, p = 0.013) and also higher costs during index ICU admission to hospital discharge, with a mean cost difference of $3166 (95% CI $231 to $6101, p = 0.035). A propensity matched cohort including only those that survived showed those with LEP had significantly greater mean costs for all outcomes. Sensitivity analysis revealed that international patients with LEP had significantly greater overall hospital costs of $9,240 than patients with LEP who resided in the US (95% CI $3341 to $15,140, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate significantly higher costs for patients with LEP experiencing a critical illness. The causes for this may be increased healthcare utilization secondary to communication deficiencies that impede timely decision making about care.
Assuntos
Proficiência Limitada em Inglês , Humanos , Estado Terminal/terapia , Estudos de Coortes , Idioma , Barreiras de Comunicação , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error (DE) is a common problem in clinical practice, particularly in the emergency department (ED) setting. Among ED patients presenting with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, a delay in diagnosis or failure to hospitalise may be most impactful in terms of adverse outcomes. Minorities and other vulnerable populations may be at higher risk of DE. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting the frequency and causes of DE in under-resourced patients presenting to the ED with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms. METHODS: We searched EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science from 2000 through 14 August 2022. Data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of the 7342 studies screened, we included 20 studies evaluating 7436,737 patients. Most studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was multicountry. 11 studies evaluated DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, 8 studies with cardiovascular symptoms and 1 study examined both types of symptoms. 13 studies investigated missed diagnoses and 7 studies explored delayed diagnoses. There was significant clinical and methodological variability, including heterogeneity of DE definitions and predictor variable definitions as well as methods of DE assessment, study design and reporting.Among the studies evaluating cardiovascular symptoms, black race was significantly associated with higher odds of DE in 4/6 studies evaluating missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis compared with white race (OR from 1.18 (1.12-1.24) to 4.5 (1.8-11.8)). The association between other analysed factors (ethnicity, insurance and limited English proficiency) and DE in this domain varied from study to study and was inconclusive.Among the studies evaluating DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, no consistent association was found indicating higher or lower odds of DE. Although some studies showed significant differences, these were not consistently in the same direction.The overall ROB was low for most included studies; however, the certainty of evidence was very low, mostly due to serious inconsistency in definitions and measurement approaches across studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated consistent increased odds of missed AMI/ACS diagnosis among black patients presenting to the ED compared with white patients in most studies. No consistent associations between demographic groups and DE related to cerebrovascular/neurological diagnoses were identified. More standardised approaches to study design, measurement of DE and outcomes assessment are needed to understand this problem among vulnerable populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178885 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178885.
Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Populações Vulneráveis , Humanos , Erros de Diagnóstico , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
There is a lack of diagnostic performance measures associated with pulmonary embolism (PE). We aimed to explore the concept of the time to diagnostic certainty, which we defined as the time interval that elapses between first presentation of a patient to a confirmed PE diagnosis with computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CT PA). This approach could be used to highlight variability in health system diagnostic performance, and to select patient outliers for structured chart review in order to identify underlying contributors to diagnostic error or delay. We performed a retrospective observational study at academic medical centers and associated community-based hospitals in one health system, examining randomly selected adult patients admitted to study sites with a diagnosis of acute saddle PE. One hundred patients were randomly selected from 340 patients discharged with saddle PE. Twenty-four patients were excluded. Among the 76 included patients, time to diagnostic certainty ranged from 1.5 to 310 hours. We found that 73/76 patients were considered to have PE present on admission (CT PA ≤ 48 hours). The proportion of patients with PE present on admission with time to diagnostic certainty of > 6 hours was 26% (19/73). The median (IQR) time to treatment (thrombolytics/anticoagulants) was 3.5 (2.5-5.1) hours among the 73 patients. The proportion of patients with PE present on admission with treatment delays of > 6 hours was 16% (12/73). Three patients acquired PE during hospitalization (CT PA > 48 hours). In this study, we developed and successfully tested the concept of time to diagnostic certainty for saddle PE.
Assuntos
Embolia Pulmonar , Adulto , Humanos , Embolia Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Pulmão , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodos , Hospitalização , Fibrinolíticos/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing income inequality and health disparities in the United States (US). The objective of this study was to conduct timely, community-engaged research to understand the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on historically under-resourced communities with the goal of improving health equity. The initiative focused on priorities identified by Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNA) conducted every 3 years per Federal funding requirements. These were access to healthcare, maternal/child health, obesity/food insecurity/physical activity, and mental health/addiction. METHODS: In the first three quarters of 2021, we developed and employed mixed methods in three simultaneous phases of data collection. In phase 1, we used purposive sampling to identify key informants from multiple stakeholder groups and conducted semi-structured interviews. In phase 2, we held focus groups with community members from historically marginalized demographics. In phase 3, we developed a survey using validated scales and distributed it to diverse communities residing in the geographic areas of our healthcare system across four states. CONCLUSION: Healthcare systems may use the methodology outlined in this paper to conduct responsive community engagement during periods of instability and/or crisis and to address health equity issues. The results can inform sustainable approaches to collaborate with communities to build resilience and prepare for future crises.
Assuntos
Comportamento Aditivo , COVID-19 , Criança , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Projetos de Pesquisa , Coleta de DadosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Intensive care unit (ICU) direct care nurses spend 22% of their shift completing tasks within the electronic health record (EHR). Miscommunications and inefficiencies occur, particularly during patient hand-off, placing patient safety at risk. Redesigning how direct care nurses visualize and interact with patient information during hand-off is one opportunity to improve EHR use. A web-based survey was deployed to better understand the information and visualization needs at patient hand-off to inform redesign. METHODS: A multicenter anonymous web-based survey of direct care ICU nurses was conducted (9-12/2021). Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders informed survey development. The primary outcome was identifying primary EHR data needs at patient hand-off for inclusion in future EHR visualization and interface development. Secondary outcomes included current use of the EHR at patient hand-off, EHR satisfaction, and visualization preferences. Frequencies, means, and medians were calculated for each data item then ranked in descending order to generate proportional quarters using SAS v9.4. RESULTS: In total, 107 direct care ICU nurses completed the survey. The majority (46%, n = 49/107) use the EHR at patient hand-off to verify exchanged verbal information. Sixty-four percent (n = 68/107) indicated that current EHR visualization was insufficient. At the start of an ICU shift, primary EHR data needs included hemodynamics (mean 4.89 ± 0.37, 98%, n = 105), continuous IV medications (4.55 ± 0.73, 93%, n = 99), laboratory results (4.60 ± 0.56, 96%, n = 103), mechanical circulatory support devices (4.62 ± 0.72, 90%, n = 97), code status (4.40 ± 0.85, 59%, n = 108), and ventilation status (4.35 + 0.79, 51%, n = 108). Secondary outcomes included mean EHR satisfaction of 65 (0-100 scale, standard deviation = ± 21) and preferred future EHR user-interfaces to be organized by organ system (53%, n = 57/107) and visualized by tasks/schedule (61%, n = 65/107). CONCLUSION: We identified information and visualization needs of direct care ICU nurses. The study findings could serve as a baseline toward redesigning an EHR interface.
Assuntos
Visualização de Dados , Enfermeiras e Enfermeiros , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Inquéritos e Questionários , Registros Eletrônicos de SaúdeRESUMO
Background The objective of our study was to determine whether disparities exist in the use of lung-protective ventilation for critically ill mechanically ventilated patients in the United States based on gender, race/ethnicity, or insurance status. Methods This was a secondary data analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort study conducted from 2010 to 2012. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients receiving tidal volume > 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). Results There were 1,595 patients in our primary analysis (710 women, 885 men). Women were more likely to receive tidal volumes > 8 mL/kg PBW than men (odds ratio [OR] = 3.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.67-4.40), a finding largely but not completely explained by gender differences in height. The underinsured were significantly more likely to receive tidal volume > 8 mL/kg PBW than the insured in multivariable analysis (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.16-2.04). The prescription of > 8 mL/kg PBW tidal volume did not differ by racial or ethnic categories. Conclusions In this prospective nationwide cohort of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, women and the underinsured were less likely than their comparators to receive lung-protective ventilation, with no apparent differences based on race/ethnicity alone.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected historically marginalized populations and their access to resources and healthcare. In times of crisis, authentic community engagement is more important than ever. This study was Phase 1 of a larger 3-phase study to conduct timely community-engaged research with community members to understand the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on historically underserved communities. The objective of this work was to conduct key informant (KI) interviews (1) to understand community organizations perspectives about the role that large academic health centers play as they interface with community organizations to support their work, (2) to leverage KI's expertise to identify needs and assets within the community, and (3) to inform both Phase 2 (focus group qualitative research) and Phase 3 (survey) of the broader study. METHODS: A total of 24 key informants were identified through purposeful sampling and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted across 4 states using video conferencing. RESULTS: Barriers to access and lack of transparency were highlighted as major issues requiring reform-in particular, aggressive billing practices and insurance barriers exacerbated local distrust of medical institutions. KIs recognized the health institution's support for testing and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted other significant gaps in care, especially regarding mental health support. Although communication with the health institution was consistent for some KIs, others experienced unsustained communication efforts that hindered cooperation and relationship building. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders in the community as key stakeholders can provide unique insights into the challenges and potential solutions required to promote health equity, and foster understanding between local communities and healthcare institutions.