Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 34
Filtrar
1.
J Alzheimers Dis ; 2022 Mar 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35311710

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Participants in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention studies are generally required to enroll with a study partner; this requirement constitutes a barrier to enrollment for some otherwise interested individuals. Analysis of dyads enrolled in actual AD trials suggests that the study partner requirement shapes the population under study. OBJECTIVE: To understand if individuals can identify someone to serve as their study partner and whether they would be willing to ask that individual. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with cognitively unimpaired, English-speaking older adults who had previously expressed interest in AD research by signing up for a research registry. We also interviewed their likely study partners. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and coded in an iterative, team-based process guided by a content analysis approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 60 potential research participants and 17 likely study partners. Most potential participants identified one or two individuals they would be willing to ask to serve as their study partner. Interviewees saw value in the study partner role but also understood it to entail burdens that could make participation as a study partner more difficult. The role was seen as relatively more burdensome for individuals in the workforce or with family responsibilities. Calls from the researcher to discuss the importance of the role and the possibility of virtual visits were identified as potential strategies for increasing study partner availability. CONCLUSION: Efforts to increase recruitment, particularly representative recruitment, of participants for AD prevention studies should reduce barriers to participation by thoughtfully designing the study partner role.

2.
JAMA Surg ; 157(5): 406-413, 2022 May 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35319737

RESUMO

Importance: Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients. Objective: To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers. Interventions: Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making. Results: A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

3.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(5): 1487-1494, 2022 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34990017

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy. RESULTS: Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting. CONCLUSION: Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values.

5.
Soc Sci Med ; 300: 114453, 2022 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34663541

RESUMO

A number of conceptual frameworks have emerged with the goal of helping clinicians understand and navigate the intersections of the health system and broader political, economic, and cultural processes when they care for patients. In this study, we analyze the impact that one emerging framework, "structural competency," had on medical students' and physicians' understanding of societal problems affecting patient health and the practices of health systems. In this sub-analysis of a longitudinal qualitative study conducted between August and December 2020, we analyzed 19 semi-structured interviews with 7 first-year medical students, 7 upper-level medical students, and 5 physician course facilitators who participated in a course called Introduction to Medicine and Society at an medical school in the United States affiliated with a large urban academic medical center. This paper focuses on three main findings: how medical students and faculty describe "structures" and their effects on patients and patient care; how they use or imagine using structural competency to improve patient-physician communication and work interprofessionally to address social needs; and the emotional and personal reactions that confronting societal challenges provokes. We conclude that structural competency enhances existing efforts to improve patient-physician communication and to address patients' social needs. However, we highlight how structural competency efforts might fall short of their goal to shift physicians' perspectives "upstream" to the determinants of health due to both critical ambiguities in the concept and inattention to the emotional and personal impacts of addressing societal problems in the clinic. These findings have practical implications for how clinicians are trained to act on societal issues from within the health system and conceptual implications for refining how existing frameworks and curricula conceive of the intersection between healthcare and broader processes.


Assuntos
Educação Médica , Estudantes de Medicina , Currículo , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Faculdades de Medicina , Estados Unidos
6.
Soc Sci Med ; 292: 114614, 2022 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34861569

RESUMO

There has been a persistent lack of clarity regarding how to define and measure the quality of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). To address this challenge, we interviewed 43 individuals designated as IRB Stakeholders, including leaders in research ethics oversight, policymakers, investigators, research sponsors, and patient advocates, about their views regarding key features of IRB quality and how those features could be measured. We also interviewed 20 U.S. IRB directors (or individuals in similar roles) to learn how their institutions currently define and measure IRB quality and to assess satisfaction with those approaches. We analyzed the interviews, all of which were conducted in 2018, using a modified grounded theory approach. Individuals in the Stakeholder group struggled both to define IRB quality and identify appropriate measures. Those in the Director group gave less abstract and more bounded accounts, offering definitions of quality based on what their institutions currently measure. In identifying core definitional elements of IRB quality, both groups discussed efficiency, compliance, board and staff qualifications, and research facilitation. However, in an important omission by Directors, only Stakeholders named participant protection and thoughtful review as essential elements of IRB quality, despite the centrality of these factors to the very purpose of IRBs. Directors in our sample were largely satisfied with their institutions' current approaches to quality measurement, which included audits of internal processes and regulatory compliance, efficiency tracking, and feedback from board members and researchers. In addition to fleshing out what it means for IRB discretion to be exercised reasonably, adopting proposed metrics related to participant protection outcomes could help IRBs refocus on their core mission and prevent them from falling further into the broader trend of 'audit culture.'


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa , Ética em Pesquisa , Humanos , Pesquisadores , Estados Unidos
8.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(2): 341-350, 2022 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34341916

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Ensuring equitable care remains a critical issue for healthcare systems. Nationwide evidence highlights the persistence of healthcare disparities and the need for research-informed approaches for reducing them at the local level. OBJECTIVE: To characterize key contributors in racial/ethnic disparities in emergency department (ED) throughput times. DESIGN: We conducted a sequential mixed methods analysis to understand variations in ED care throughput times for patients eventually admitted to an emergency department at a single academic medical center from November 2017 to May 2018 (n=3152). We detailed patient progression from ED arrival to decision to admit and compared racial/ethnic differences in time intervals from electronic medical record time-stamp data. We then estimated the relationships between race/ethnicity and ED throughput times, adjusting for several patient-level variables and ED-level covariates. These quantitative analyses informed our qualitative study design, which included observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and physicians. KEY RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Black as compared to non-Hispanic White patients waited significantly longer during the time interval from arrival to the physician's decision to admit, even after adjustment for several ED-level and patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic variables (Beta (average minutes) (SE): 16.35 (5.8); p value=.005). Qualitative findings suggest that the manner in which providers communicate, advocate, and prioritize patients may contribute to such disparities. When the race/ethnicity of provider and patient differed, providers were more likely to interrupt patients, ignore their requests, and make less eye contact. Conversely, if the race/ethnicity of provider and patient were similar, providers exhibited a greater level of advocacy, such as tracking down patient labs or consultants. Physicians with no significant ED throughput disparities articulated objective criteria such as triage scores for prioritizing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the importance of (1) understanding how our communication style and care may differ by race/ethnicity; and (2) taking advantage of structured processes designed to equalize care.


Assuntos
Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Hospitalização , Humanos , Estados Unidos
9.
Acad Med ; 97(2): 222-227, 2022 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34232152

RESUMO

PROBLEM: Formative feedback, given in an ongoing fashion during the learning process, is fundamental to clinical education. However, dissatisfaction with formative feedback among residents is common. Difficulties with formative feedback are intensified in the operating room (OR) setting due to fast pace, space limitations, and frequent rotation of residents and attendings. APPROACH: In the anesthesiology and critical care department at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, the authors launched the Feedback Moment initiative from January 2018 to May 2018 in which 24 first-year residents and attendings were given a short series of prompts designed to facilitate regular, high-quality formative feedback. The authors conducted semistructured interviews with residents before and after the initiative to evaluate its impact. OUTCOMES: In baseline interviews, 18 participating residents stressed the importance of formative feedback but described feeling unsure of their performance due to lack of ongoing constructive input from attendings. They felt hesitant to approach attendings for feedback due to a desire not to interrupt OR workflow or appear incompetent. In follow-up interviews, residents described the initiative as helping to normalize constructive formative feedback but difficult to execute regularly due to OR workflow issues and frequent rotation of attendings with varying approaches. NEXT STEPS: Challenges faced by participants in this initiative highlight several considerations for effective OR-based formative feedback. Alternative timings for initiating feedback must be considered in light of the hectic nature of the OR workflow. Residents should be equipped with the skills necessary to adapt to varying practice patterns and frequent rotation between attendings, while attendings should be trained to provide a clear rationale for constructive feedback that allows residents to quickly adapt to practice variation. Finally, establishing clear goals among resident-attending pairs is critical to ensuring that formative feedback given in necessarily brief sessions is focused and productive.


Assuntos
Competência Clínica/normas , Feedback Formativo , Salas Cirúrgicas/normas , Internato e Residência , Philadelphia
10.
J Clin Anesth ; 77: 110615, 2022 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34923227

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of data-driven didactic sessions on metrics including fund of knowledge, resident confidence in clinical topics, and stress in addition to American Board of Anesthesiology In-Training Examination (ITE) percentiles. DESIGN: Observational mixed-methods study. SETTING: Classroom, video-recorded e-learning. SUBJECTS: Anesthesiology residents from two academic medical centers. INTERVENTIONS: Residents were offered a data-driven didactic session, focused on lifelong learning regarding frequently asked/missed topics based on publicly-available data. MEASUREMENTS: Residents were surveyed regarding their confidence on exam topics, organization of study plan, willingness to educate others, and stress levels. Residents at one institution were interviewed post-ITE. The level and trend in ITE percentiles were compared before and after the start of this initiative using segmented regression analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four residents participated in the survey. A comparison of pre-post responses showed an increased mean level of confidence (4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 6.2 ± 1.4; difference in means 95% CI:1.7[1.5,1.9]), sense of study organization (3.8 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 1.3;95% CI:2.8[2.5,3.1]), willingness to educate colleagues (4.0 ± 1.7 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9;95% CI:1.7[1.4,2.0]), and reduced stress levels (5.9 ± 1.9 vs. 5.2 ± 1.7;95% CI:-0.7[-1.0,-0.4]) (all p < 0.001). Thirty-one residents from one institution participated in the interviews. Interviews exhibited qualitative themes associated with increased fund of knowledge, accessibility of high-yield resources, and domains from the Kirkpatrick Classification of an educational intervention. In an assessment of 292 residents from 2012 to 2020 at one institution, there was a positive change in mean ITE percentile (adjusted intercept shift [95% CI] 11.0[3.6,18.5];p = 0.004) and trajectory over time after the introduction of data-driven didactics. CONCLUSION: Data-driven didactics was associated with improved resident confidence, stress, and factors related to wellness. It was also associated with a change from a negative to positive trend in ITE percentiles over time. Future assessment of data-driven didactics and impact on resident outcomes are needed.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia , Internato e Residência , Anestesiologia/educação , Competência Clínica , Avaliação Educacional/métodos , Escolaridade , Humanos , Estados Unidos
11.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(9): e28897, 2021 09 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34406968

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Inpatient health care facilities restricted inpatient visitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no existing evidence of how they communicated these policies to the public nor the impact of their communication choices on public perception. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe patterns of inpatient visitation policies during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and the communication of these policies to the general public, as well as to identify communication strategies that maximize positive impressions of the facility despite visitation restrictions. METHODS: We conducted a sequential, exploratory, mixed methods study including a qualitative analysis of COVID-19 era visitation policies published on Pennsylvania-based facility websites, as captured between April 30 and May 20, 2020 (ie, during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States). We also conducted a factorial survey-based experiment to test how key elements of hospitals' visitation policy communication are associated with individuals' willingness to seek care in October 2020. For analysis of the policies, we included all inpatient facilities in Pennsylvania. For the factorial experiment, US adults were drawn from internet research panels. The factorial survey-based experiment presented composite policies that varied in their justification for restricted visitation, the degree to which the facility expressed ownership of the policy, and the inclusion of family-centered care support plans. Our primary outcome was participants' willingness to recommend the hypothetical facility using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: We identified 104 unique policies on inpatient visitation from 363 facilities' websites. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the policies was 14.2. Most policies prohibited family presence (99/104, 95.2%). Facilities justified the restricted visitation policies on the basis of community protection (59/104, 56.7%), authorities' guidance or regulations (34/104, 32.7%), or scientific rationale (23/104, 22.1%). A minority (38/104, 36.5%) addressed how restrictive visitation may impair family-centered care. Most of the policies analyzed used passive voice to communicate restrictions. A total of 1321 participants completed the web-based survey. Visitation policy elements significantly associated with willingness to recommend the facility included justifications based on community protection (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68) or scientific rationale (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51), rather than those based on a governing authority. The facility expressed a high degree of ownership over the decision (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29), rather than a low degree of ownership; and inclusion of family-centered care support plans (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.51-3.12), rather than no such support. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems can immediately improve public receptiveness of restrictive visitation policies by emphasizing community protection, ownership over the facility's policy, and promoting family-centered care.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Adulto , Comunicação , Família , Humanos , Pacientes Internados , Políticas , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos
12.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(5): e219211, 2021 05 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33944923

RESUMO

Importance: Financial incentives may improve health by rewarding patients for focusing on present actions-such as medication regimen adherence-that provide longer-term health benefits. Objective: To identify barriers to improving statin therapy adherence and control of cholesterol levels with financial incentives and insights for the design of future interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study involved retrospective interviews with participants in a preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of financial incentives for statin therapy adherence. A total of 636 trial participants from several US insurer or employer populations and an academic health system were rank ordered by change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) levels. Participants with the most LDLC level improvement (high-improvement group) and those with LDLC levels that did not improve (nonimprovement group) were purposively targeted, stratified across all trial groups, for semistructured telephone interviews that were performed from April 1 to June 30, 2018. Interviews were coded using a team-based, iterative approach. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to October 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mean change in LDLC level from baseline to 12 months; the secondary outcome, statin therapy adherence during the first 6 months. Results: A total of 54 patients were interviewed, divided equally between high-improvement and nonimprovement groups, with a mean (SD) age of 43.5 (10.3) years; 36 (66.7%) were women, 28 (51.9%) had diabetes, and 18 (33.3%) had cardiovascular disease. Compared with the high-improvement group, the nonimprovement group had fewer interviewees with an annual income of greater than $50 000 (11 [40.7%] vs 22 [81.5%]), worse self-reported health (fair to poor, 13 [48.1%] vs 3 [11.1%]), more Black interviewees (16 [59.3%] vs 4 [14.8%]), and lower baseline LDLC levels (>160 mg/dL, 2 [7.4%] vs 25 [92.6%]). Participants in the nonimprovement group had a greater burden of chronic illness (≥2 chronic conditions, 13 [48.1%] vs 6 [22.2%]) and were less frequently employed (full-time, 6 [22.2%] vs 12 [44.4%]). In interviews, the nonimprovement group was less focused on risks of high LDLC levels, described less engagement in LDLC level management, articulated fewer specific nutritional choices for optimizing health, and recounted greater difficulty obtaining healthy food. Participants in both groups had difficulty describing the structure of the financial incentives but did recall features of the electronic pill containers used to track adherence and how those containers affected medication routines. Conclusions and Relevance: Participants in a statin adherence trial whose LDLC levels did not improve found it more difficult to create medication routines and respond to financial incentives in the context of complex living conditions and a high burden of chronic illness. These findings suggest that future studies should be more attentive to socioeconomic circumstances of trial participants. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.


Assuntos
Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/uso terapêutico , Adesão à Medicação , Adulto , Idoso , LDL-Colesterol/sangue , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Adesão à Medicação/psicologia , Adesão à Medicação/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Motivação , Pesquisa Qualitativa
13.
Anesthesiology ; 135(1): 111-121, 2021 07 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33891695

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia-e.g., through shared decision-making-are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. METHODS: This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. RESULTS: The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists' attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients' anxiety.


Assuntos
Anestesia/métodos , Artroplastia do Joelho , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Participação do Paciente/métodos , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Participação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Estados Unidos
14.
Ann Surg ; 2021 Mar 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33714966

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe decisions about the escalation and withdrawal of treatment for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Interventions premised on facilitating patient autonomy have proven problematic in guiding treatment decisions in intensive care units (ICUs). Calls have thus been made to better understand how decisions are made in critical care. ECMO is an important form of cardiac and respiratory support, but care on ECMO is characterized by prognostic uncertainty, varying time course, and high resource use. It remains unclear how decisions about treatment escalation and withdrawal should be made for patients on ECMO and what role families should play in these decisions. METHODS: We performed a focused ethnography in 2 cardiothoracic ICUs in 2 US academic hospitals. We conducted 380 hours of observation, 34 weekly interviews with families of 20 ECMO patients, and 13 interviews with unit clinicians from January to September 2018. Qualitative analysis used an iterative coding process. RESULTS: Following ECMO initiation, care was escalated as complications mounted until the patient either could be decannulated or interventional options were exhausted. Families were well-informed about treatment and prognosis but played minimal roles in shaping the trajectory of care. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion between clinicians and families about prognosis and goals was frequent but did not occasion decision-making moments. This study helps explain why communication interventions intended to maintain patient autonomy through facilitating surrogate participation in decisions have had limited impact. A more comprehensive understanding of upstream factors that predispose courses of critical care is needed.

15.
Surgery ; 170(2): 550-557, 2021 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33715849

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak has spread worldwide and has resulted in hospital restrictions. The perceived impact of these practices on patients undergoing essential surgeries is less understood. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures spanning multiple surgical specialties from March 23, 2020, to April 24, 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were identified as eligible for a phone survey. Survey responses were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach involving descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of coded and annotated survey results. RESULTS: Of the 212 patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the majority of these patients were male (61.3%), White (83.5%), married or with a domestic partner (68.9%), and underwent oncologic procedures (69.3%). Of the 46 patients (21.7%) who completed the survey, the majority of these patients indicated that coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restrictions had no impact on their inpatient hospital stay and were satisfied with their decision to proceed with surgery. Severity of patient condition (44.4%), the risk/benefit discussion with the surgeon (24.4%), and coronavirus disease 2019 education and testing (19.5%) were the most important factors in proceeding with surgery during the pandemic; 34.4% of patients said their inpatient postoperative course was negatively affected by the lack of visitors. CONCLUSION: Medically necessary, time-sensitive surgical procedures, as determined by the surgeon, can be performed during a pandemic with good patient satisfaction provided there is an appropriate discussion between the surgeon and patient about the risks and benefits.


Assuntos
COVID-19/psicologia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios/psicologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
16.
Med Educ ; 54(11): 1029-1039, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32434271

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Residency programmes invest considerable time and resources in candidate interviews as a result of their perceived ability to reveal important social traits. However, studies examining the ability of interviews to predict resident performance have shown mixed findings, and the role of the interview in candidate evaluation remains unclear. This mixed-methods study, conducted in an anaesthesiology residency programme at a large academic medical centre, examined how interviews contributed to candidate assessment and whether the addition of behavioural questions to interviews altered their role in the evaluation process. METHODS: During the 2018-2019 residency selection season in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at the University of Pennsylvania, independent ratings for each interviewee were collected from faculty interviewers. Consensus ratings subsequently established by committee were also collected. Committee meetings were audiorecorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Behavioural questions were integrated into half of interview days. Ratings of candidates interviewed on behavioural question days were compared statistically with those of candidates interviewed on non-behavioural question days. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis showed that interviewers heavily emphasised candidates' application files in evaluating the interviews. Interviewers focused on candidates' academic records and favoured candidates whose interview behaviours were consistent with their applications and whose applications demonstrated similarities to interviewers' traits. The addition of behavioural questions demonstrated little ability to alter these dynamics. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences in candidate rating outcomes between behavioural and non-behavioural interviewing days, whereas a higher medical school rating and higher score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 were associated with a more favourable consensus rating. CONCLUSIONS: Residency candidates' application files predisposed interviewers' experience and evaluation of interviews, preventing the interviews from providing discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities, even when behavioural questions were included. In the continued effort to perform well-rounded assessments of residency candidates, further research and reflection on the role of interviewing in evaluation are necessary.


Assuntos
Internato e Residência , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Humanos , Licenciamento , Seleção de Pessoal , Critérios de Admissão Escolar , Faculdades de Medicina , Estados Unidos
18.
Healthc (Amst) ; 8(1): 100388, 2020 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31672494

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Centers of Excellence (CoEs) are intended to label hospitals that have met certain quality, process, volume and infrastructure guidelines. However, there are largely no standardized metrics to designate what qualifies as a CoE, leading to entities across the healthcare spectrum creating their own designations. Empirical studies on the impact of CoEs on quality do not consistently show improved care. Given the variability in definitions and outcomes for CoEs, the study evaluated the current status of defining and using CoE designations. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with executives from 10 healthcare organizations (including hospitals, insurers, employers, and benefits managers) who have a role in determining or using CoE designations to make decisions for their organizations. The interviews were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: We found that there is significant variability in the process for defining CoEs. There are also many operational challenges that hinder the success of a CoE program, including how patients access care at a CoE, the right geographical distribution of CoEs in a network, and coordinating care between the CoE and local providers. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standardization for designating CoEs not only prevents CoEs from fully achieving their intended effects of signaling "excellent" hospitals, but also causes confusion for patients, employers and payers, which dilutes the meaning of the CoE label. IMPLICATIONS: We suggest that the designation and implementation of CoEs should be standardized in healthcare.


Assuntos
Pessoal Administrativo/psicologia , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/classificação , Padrões de Referência , Pessoal Administrativo/estatística & dados numéricos , Hospitais/normas , Hospitais/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto/métodos , Pennsylvania
19.
Acad Med ; 95(7): 1089-1097, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31567173

RESUMO

PURPOSE: This qualitative study sought to characterize the role of debriefing after real critical events among anesthesia residents at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. METHOD: From October 2016 to June 2017 and February to April 2018, the authors conducted 25 semistructured interviews with 24 anesthesia residents after they were involved in 25 unique critical events. Interviews focused on the experience of the event and the interactions that occurred thereafter. A codebook was generated through annotation, then used by 3 researchers in an iterative process to code interview transcripts. An explanatory model was developed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: In the aftermath of events, residents underwent a multistage process by which the nature of critical events and the role of residents in them were continuously reconstructed. Debriefing-if it occurred-was 1 stage in this process, which also included stages of internal dialogue, event documentation, and lessons learned. Negotiated in each stage were residents' culpability, reputation, and the appropriateness of their affective response to events. CONCLUSIONS: Debriefing is one of several stages of interaction that occur after a critical event; all stages play a role in shaping how the event is interpreted and remembered. Because of its dynamic role in constituting the nature of events and residents' role in them, debriefing can be a high-stakes interaction for residents, which can contribute to their reluctance to engage in it. The function and quality of debriefing can be assessed in more insightful fashion by understanding its relation to the other stages of event reconstruction.


Assuntos
Centros Médicos Acadêmicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Anestesiologia/educação , Internato e Residência/métodos , Treinamento por Simulação/métodos , Competência Clínica , Feminino , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Masculino , Pennsylvania/epidemiologia , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Universidades/estatística & dados numéricos
20.
Am J Kidney Dis ; 75(1): 61-71, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31492489

RESUMO

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between nephrology consultants and intensive care unit (ICU) teams is important in light of the high incidence of acute kidney injury in today's ICUs. Although there is considerable debate about how nephrology consultants and ICU teams should collaborate, communicative dynamics between the 2 parties remain poorly understood. This article describes interactions between nephrology consultants and ICU teams in the academic medical setting. STUDY DESIGN: Focused ethnography using semi-structured interviews and participant observation. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to enroll nephrologists, nephrology fellows, and ICU practitioners across several roles collaborating in 3 ICUs (a medical ICU, a surgical ICU, and a cardiothoracic surgical ICU) of a large urban US academic medical center. Participant observation (150 hours) and semi-structured interviews (35) continued until theoretical saturation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview and fieldnote transcripts were coded in an iterative team-based process. Explanation was developed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: Nephrology consultants and surgical ICU teams exhibited discordant preferences about the aggressiveness of renal replacement therapy based on different understandings of physiology, goals of care, and acuity. Collaborative difficulties resulting from this discordance led to nephrology consultants often serving as dialysis proceduralists rather than diagnosticians in surgical ICUs and to consultants sometimes choosing not to express disagreements about clinical care because of the belief that doing so would not lead to changes in the course of care. LIMITATIONS: Aspects of this single-site study of an academic medical center may not be generalizable to other clinical settings and samples. Surgical team perspectives would provide further detail about nephrology consultation in surgical ICUs. The effects of findings on patient care were not examined. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in approach between internal medicine-trained nephrologists and anesthesia- and surgery-trained intensivists and surgeons led to collaborative difficulties in surgical ICUs. These findings stress the need for medical teamwork research and intervention to address issues stemming from disciplinary siloing rooted in long-term socialization to different disciplinary practices.


Assuntos
Cuidados Críticos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Comunicação Interdisciplinar , Nefrologia , Centros Médicos Acadêmicos , Antropologia Cultural , Comportamento Cooperativo , Enfermagem de Cuidados Críticos , Tomada de Decisões Assistida por Computador , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Terapia de Substituição Renal
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...