Laypeople's (Mis)Understanding of Common Medical Acronyms.

OBJECTIVES: Abbreviations are often used in medicine yet may be a source of confusion for patients and their families. We aimed to determine the general public's understanding of commonly used medical acronyms. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we surveyed state fair visitors regarding their understanding of 5 common medical acronyms. An electronic survey was administered to a volunteer sample of adults who spoke and read English and who had never trained to work in medicine or nursing. Free-text responses were coded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect by 2 independent researchers, adding a third researcher if consensus was not reached. Analysis methods included descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We recruited 204 volunteers (55% female; mean age 43 years; 67% had a bachelor's degree or higher). ED (emergency department) was correctly defined by 32%, PCP (primary care provider/physician) by 18%, CBC (complete blood count) by 14%, and PRN (as needed) and NPO (nothing by mouth) by 13% each. Female gender was associated with higher odds of correctly understanding NPO (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-8.21; P = .02); older age was associated with higher odds of understanding PRN (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.05; P = .04). Education level was not found to correlate significantly with successful explanation of any tested acronym. CONCLUSIONS: Medical acronyms are a predictable source of miscommunication. In this large cross-sectional study, none of the acronyms evaluated was understood correctly by more than one-third of adults. Clinicians should avoid using acronyms with patients and families to minimize confusion.

Jargon Be Gone - Patient Preference in Doctor Communication.

While it has been shown that healthcare providers often use medical jargon, less is known about how patients prefer their clinicians communicate. This mixed-methods study aimed to better understand the general public's preference in healthcare communication. A volunteer cohort of 205 adult attendees at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair was presented a survey with two scenarios at a doctor's office sharing the same information: one using medical terminology and one using simpler, jargon-free language. Survey participants were asked which doctor they preferred, to describe each doctor, and to explain why they believe that doctors may use medical terminology. Common descriptive themes for the jargon-using doctor included that this doctor caused confusion, was too technical, and was uncaring, while the doctor who spoke without jargon was perceived as a good communicator, caring/empathetic, and approachable. Respondents perceived a range of reasons why doctors use jargon, from not recognizing they are using words that are not understood to trying to make themselves feel more important. Overall, 91% of survey respondents preferred the doctor who communicated without medical jargon.

Accuracy in Patient Understanding of Common Medical Phrases.

Importance: Despite acknowledging that medical jargon should be avoided, health care practitioners frequently use it when communicating with patients. Objective: To characterize the understanding of common medical jargon terms by surveying a cross section of the general public and studying phrases that have established meanings in regular usage but different meanings in a medical context (eg, negative and positive test results). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, participants indicated their understanding of phrases that may have different meanings in medicine than in colloquial English via a mix of short answer and multiple choice questions. Several questions included paired phrases to assess for differences in understanding with or without jargon. Volunteers were recruited at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair near St Paul, Minnesota. An electronic survey was given to a volunteer sample of 215 adults (>18 years) who did not work or train to work in the medical field and spoke and read English. Exposures: Completing a written or verbal survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was an accurate understanding of the medical terminology. Free-text responses were coded by 2 researchers for comprehension. Secondary outcomes looked for associations between volunteer demographics and understanding. Results: The 215 respondents (135 [63%] female; mean [SD] age, 42 [17] years) demonstrated a varied ability to interpret medical jargon phrases. For example, most participants (207 [96%]) knew that negative cancer screening results meant they did not have cancer, but fewer participants (143 [79%]) knew that the phrase "your tumor is progressing" was bad news, or that positive lymph nodes meant the cancer had spread (170 [67%]). While most (171 [80%]) recognized that an unremarkable chest radiography was good news, only 44 participants (21%) correctly understood that a clinician saying their radiography was impressive was generally bad news. In each of the paired phrases comparing jargon vs nonjargon approaches, the nonjargon phrase was understood significantly better (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that several common phrases are misunderstood when used in a medical setting, with the interpreted meaning frequently the exact opposite of what is intended.

What's in a name? Laypeople's understanding of medical roles and titles.

BACKGROUND: Physicians regularly use jargon in patient communication, which can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. OBJECTIVE: To assess the general public's understanding of names and roles of medical specialties and job seniority titles. DESIGNS: Volunteer participants completed an electronic survey, filling-in-the-blanks for 14 medical specialties (e.g., "pediatricians are doctors who take care of _____"), and ranked physician titles in order of experience (medical student, intern, senior resident, fellow, attending). SETTING: The 2021 Minnesota State Fair. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers >18 years old without medical or nursing training. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We summarized responses with descriptive statistics. Two researchers coded open-ended answers as correct, partially correct, or incorrect, with a third researcher for coding discrepancies. RESULTS: Two hundred and four participants completed the survey (55% female; mean age 43; 67% of respondents with a bachelor's degree or higher). Of 14 medical specialties listed on the survey, respondents most accurately identified dermatologists (94%) and cardiologists (93%). Six specialties were understood by less than half of the respondents: neonatologists (48%), pulmonologists (43%), hospitalists (31%), intensivists (29%), internists (21%), and nephrologists (20%). Twelve percent of participants correctly identified medical roles in rank order. Most participants (74%) correctly identified medical students as the least experienced. Senior residents were most often identified as the most experienced (44%), with just 27% of respondents correctly placing the attending there. We conclude that medical professionals should recognize that titles are a common source of misunderstanding among the general public and should describe their role when introducing themselves to minimize confusion.

Providing a Second Opinion to Dr. Google with the WWW Framework.

While clinicians are often aware that their patients seek second opinions, they are rarely taught specific skills for how to effectively communicate with patients when they are the ones providing that second opinion. The nuances of these skills are amplified when the second opinion being provided is to the ubiquitous (and often anonymous) Dr. Google. In this perspective, the authors share an approach for discussing a patient's pre-visit health-related internet findings. After emphasizing the importance of setting the stage, they describe the WWW Framework which proposes "waiting" before responding with data, getting to the "what" of the patient's search, and "working together" to negotiate a plan. This stepwise approach is designed to provide psychological safety, build a therapeutic alliance, and empower collaborative treatment planning.

ED RAPID: A Novel Children's Hospital Direct Admission Process Utilizing the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Direct hospital admission of children without evaluation in the emergency department (ED) is common, but few guidelines exist to maximize safety by assessing patient stability. This report describes a novel approach to support patient safety. METHODS: An interdisciplinary children's hospital team developed a brief ED-based evaluation process called the ED Rapid Assessment of Patients Intended for Inpatient Disposition (ED RAPID). It entails a brief evaluation of vital signs and clinical stability by the ED attending physician and nurse. Children deemed stable are admitted to inpatient wards, whereas those requiring immediate intervention undergo full ED evaluation and disposition. We assessed outcomes for all children evaluated through this process from March 2013 through February 2015. RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 715 patients undergoing ED RAPID evaluation. Of these, we directly admitted 691 (96.4%) to the hospital ward after ED RAPID evaluation; median ED treatment time was 4.0 minutes. We transitioned 24 (3.4%) to full ED evaluation, 14 (2.0%) because a ward bed was unavailable, and 10 (1.4%) for clinical reasons identified in the evaluation. We admitted four of the 10 stopped (40% of stops, 0.6% of total) to an intensive care unit, and 6 (60% of stops, 0.8% of total) to the hospital ward after ED care. Eight children (1.1%) admitted to the hospital ward after ED RAPID evaluation required a transfer to an intensive care unit within 12 hours. CONCLUSION: The ED RAPID evaluation process for children directly admitted to the hospital was feasible and effective in this setting.

Optimizing Analgesic Use During Infant Lumbar Puncture in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar puncture (LP) for the collection of cerebrospinal fluid is an important diagnostic tool for the evaluation of febrile or ill-appearing infants. This invasive procedure is painful for patients; inadequate analgesia may have lasting effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends analgesia during all LP procedures, and oral sucrose alone does not offer sufficient analgesia. Our objective was to identify analgesic use trends during infant LP in our emergency department and create a system of analgesic administration. We aimed for complete compliance with one method of analgesia and an increase in our use of 2 or more methods to 85% over 12 months. METHODS: We utilized Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle methodology and retrospective chart review. Five interventions focused on staff communication, collaboration, and education. Inclusion criteria: infants <60 days who underwent LP procedure due to fever >38°C, hypothermia <36.5°C of unknown origin, or ill-appearance. RESULTS: One hundred infant LPs analyzed: 52 preintervention and 48 intervention. The use of one analgesic increased from 98% preintervention to 100%. The use of 2 or more analgesics increased from 58% preintervention to 87%. Topical lidocaine use increased from 56% preintervention to 73%. LP success rates were high in both groups, with no statistically significant change in the success rate. CONCLUSION: We created a streamlined process to ensure all infants undergoing lumbar puncture received at least 1 analgesic and increased the proportion of infants treated with 2 or more analgesics. This work could be expanded to improve analgesia during other invasive procedures in the emergency department.

Ondansetron Prescription for Home Use in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Ondansetron has been shown to decrease admission rate and the need for intravenous fluids among pediatric emergency department (ED) patients with acute gastroenteritis, but there is limited evidence regarding its use after ED discharge. This study describes prescribing patterns for ondansetron and assesses the effects of ondansetron home prescription on rate of return. METHODS: Data were gathered from the electronic health record on 2 separate but overlapping groups of patients seen in a pediatric ED from 2012 to 2014. The Gastroenteritis Group included all patients with a discharge diagnosis of gastroenteritis by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code. The All Ondansetron Group included any child prescribed ondansetron at discharge. Patterns of ondansetron use and 3- and 7-day ED return rate were assessed for both groups. Discharge diagnosis was evaluated for the All Ondansetron Group. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients with acute gastroenteritis were identified during the study period. Of these, 76% received ondansetron in the ED, and 71% were discharged with prescriptions for ondansetron. Seven-day ED return rates were similar between groups (6% with prescription, 5% without, P = 0.66). A total of 2287 patients received home prescriptions for ondansetron. Fifty-four percent of these patients' discharge diagnoses were classed as gastrointestinal complaints, 14% other infectious conditions, 9% respiratory, and 4% injuries. Their return rate was 6%. There was wide variation in the number of doses prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Home-use ondansetron is widely prescribed in this urban academic pediatric ED for a variety of indications, without effect on 3- or 7-day ED return. Further prospective studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this practice.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Enema Solutions in Pediatric Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Children presenting to pediatric emergency departments (EDs) are frequently given enemas for relief of constipation symptoms; there is very little literature guiding solution selection. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess and compare the efficacy of the various enema solutions used in a pediatric ED, including the "pink lady," a previously unreported compounded combination of docusate, magnesium citrate, mineral oil, and sodium phosphate. METHODS: We identified all children who received any enema over a 5-year period in an urban, quaternary care pediatric ED for inclusion in the study via electronic record review. Physician investigators retrospectively reviewed routine visit documentation to confirm the type and dosage of enema and assess comorbidities, indications, efficacy, and side effects. Subjective descriptions of output were classified as none, small, medium, or large by reviewer consensus. RESULTS: There were 768 records included. Median age was 6.2 years (interquartile range 3.3-10.3 years). Solutions used were sodium phosphate (n = 396), pink lady (n = 198), soap suds (n = 160), and other (n = 14). There was no significant difference in output by solution type (p = 0.88). Volume delivered was highest for pink lady, with no significant association between volume delivered and output (p = 0.48). Four percent of patients had side effects. Soap suds had a significantly higher rate of side effects (10.6%; p = 0.0003), primarily abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in reported stool output produced by sodium phosphate, soap suds, and pink lady enemas in children treated in an ED. Further study via randomized controlled trials would be beneficial in guiding selection of enema solution.

The Admission Conference Call: A Novel Approach to Optimizing Pediatric Emergency Department to Admitting Floor Communication.

Optimizing information sharing at transfer of care between teams is an important target for the improvement of patient safety. Traditional emergency department (ED)-to-floor handoffs do not support a shared mental model between physicians, residents, and nurses. This report describes and evaluates acceptance of a novel process for coordinating physician and nursing handoff calls for patients being admitted to an inpatient floor from a children's hospital ED. METHODS: The Admission Conference Call (ACC) is a single conference call including attendings, residents, and nurses from the ED and inpatient teams, currently used for 29.8% of admissions from one ED. Physicians and nurses were surveyed to assess perception of its effects on patient care. RESULTS: A total of 653 ACCs were conducted during 2017. The survey was completed by 43 nurses and 89 physicians. Mean Likert scale findings were in favor of the process supporting safe patient care (4.5/5; standard deviation [SD], 0.6); none said it increased risk. Ratings favored the process improving interdisciplinary alignment (4.0/5; SD, 0.8) and the benefits outweighing the inconvenience (3.9/5; SD, 0.9). Respondents were neutral on the effect of the ACC on throughput time (3.0/5; SD, 1.0). Logistical concerns were expressed; mean satisfaction was 6.8/10 (SD, 2.1). Free text comments varied widely, from pride to frustration. CONCLUSION: The Admission Conference Call is a well-accepted alternative to a traditional multiple call process. Most participants believe it supports safe patient care. Further research is necessary to confirm measurable effects on patient outcomes, but this project provides encouragement to institutions considering innovative approaches.

The Use of a Triage-Based Protocol for Oral Rehydration in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend oral rehydration therapy (ORT) and avoidance of laboratory tests and intravenous fluids for mild to moderate dehydration in children with gastroenteritis; oral ondansetron has been shown to be an effective adjunct. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if a triage-based, nurse-initiated protocol for early provision of ondansetron and ORT could safely improve the care of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients with symptoms of gastroenteritis. METHODS: This study evaluated a protocol prompting triage nurses to assess dehydration in gastroenteritis patients and initiate ondansetron and ORT if indicated. Otherwise well patients aged 6 months to 5 years with symptoms of gastroenteritis were eligible. Prospective postintervention data were compared with retrospective, preintervention control subjects. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight (81 postintervention and 47 preintervention) patients were analyzed; average age was 2.1 years. Ondansetron use increased from 36% to 75% (P < 0.001). Time to ondansetron decreased from 60 minutes to 30 minutes (P = 0.004). Documented ORT increased from 51% to 100% (P < 0.001). Blood testing decreased from 37% to 21% (P = 0.007); intravenous fluid decreased from 23% to 9% (P = 0.03). Fifty-two percent of postintervention patients were discharged with prescriptions for ondansetron. There were no significant changes in ED length of stay, admissions, or unscheduled return to care. CONCLUSIONS: A triage nurse-initiated protocol for early use of oral ondansetron and ORT in children with evidence of gastroenteritis is associated with increased and earlier use of ondansetron and ORT and decreased use of IV fluids and blood testing without lengthening ED stays or increasing rates of admission or unscheduled return to care.

Implementation of an Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tool for Pediatric Appendicitis Within a Hospital Network.

OBJECTIVES: Computed tomography (CT) has been widely used in the evaluation of children with suspected appendicitis, but concerns about ionizing radiation have increased interest in ultrasound for these patients. We sought to assess the effectiveness of an appendicitis electronic clinical decision support (E-CDS) system in increasing ultrasound and decreasing CT use in children evaluated in emergency departments (EDs) for suspected appendicitis. METHODS: This was a preintervention and postintervention analysis of an E-CDS implemented into an electronic health record system shared by an academic, tertiary-care children's hospital and a community hospital. The tool consisted of a structured order set with embedded clinical advice and a link to a Web site. Emergency department patients aged 3 to 18 years with suspected appendicitis were reviewed retrospectively. Imaging use was assessed 3 months before and 6 months after implementation of the intervention. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-seven patients were identified, 211 at postintervention; 80% were seen in the community ED. Among community ED patients with imaging, ultrasound use increased (36%-51%, P = 0.049), and CT scan use decreased (81%-66%, P = 0.044) in the postintervention period, with no change in complications or safety outcomes. No difference was found in ultrasound rate (100%-97%, P = 1.000) or CT scan rate (13%-10%, P = 1.000) among children's ED patients with imaging. CONCLUSIONS: An E-CDS can effectively decrease CT scanning and increase use of ultrasound in children with suspected appendicitis in a community hospital ED. Electronic clinical decision support may be an effective method of disseminating pediatric best practices from a children's hospital to affiliated community EDs.