Patient and nurse preferences for implementation of bedside handover: Do they agree? Findings from a discrete choice experiment

Objective: To describe and compare patients' and nurses' preferences for the implementation of bedside handover. Design: Discrete choice experiment describing handover choices using six characteristics: whether the patient is invited to participate; whether a family member/carer/friend is invited; the number of nurses present; the level of patient involvement; the information content; and privacy. Setting: Two Australian hospitals. Participants: Adult patients (n=401) and nurses (n=200) recruited from medical wards. Main outcome measures: Mean importance scores for handover characteristics estimated using mixed multinomial logit regression of the choice data. Results: Both patient and nurse participants preferred handover at the bedside rather than elsewhere (P<.05). Being invited to participate, supporting strong two-way communication, having a family member/carer/friend present and having two nurses rather than the nursing team present were most important for patients. Patients being invited to participate and supporting strong two-way communication were most important for nurses. However, contrary to patient preferences, having a family member/carer/friend present was not considered important by nurses. Further, while patients expressed a weak preference to have sensitive information handed over quietly at the bedside, nurses expressed a relatively strong preference for handover of sensitive information verbally away from the bedside. Conclusions: All participants strongly support handover at the bedside and want patients to participate although patient and nurse preferences for various aspects of bedside handover differ. An understanding of these preferences is expected to support recommendations for improving the patient hospital experience and the consistent implementation of bedside handover as a safety initiative

Beyond maternal death: improving the quality of maternal care through national studies of ‘near-miss’ maternal morbidity

Knight M, Acosta C, Brocklehurst P, Cheshire A, Fitzpatrick K, Hinton L, Jokinen M, Kemp B, Kurinczuk JJ, Lewis G, Lindquist A, Locock L, Nair M, Patel N, Quigley M, Ridge D, Rivero-Arias O, Sellers S, Shah A on behalf of the UKNeS coapplicant group. Background Studies of maternal mortality have been shown to result in important improvements to women’s health. It is now recognised that in countries such as the UK, where maternal deaths are rare, the study of near-miss severe maternal morbidity provides additional information to aid disease prevention, treatment and service provision. Objectives To (1) estimate the incidence of specific near-miss morbidities; (2) assess the contribution of existing risk factors to incidence; (3) describe different interventions and their impact on outcomes and costs; (4) identify any groups in which outcomes differ; (5) investigate factors associated with maternal death; (6) compare an external confidential enquiry or a local review approach for investigating quality of care for affected women; and (7) assess the longer-term impacts. Methods Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods including primary national observational studies, database analyses, surveys and case studies overseen by a user advisory group. Setting Maternity units in all four countries of the UK. Participants Women with near-miss maternal morbidities, their partners and comparison women without severe morbidity. Main outcome measures The incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of uterine rupture, placenta accreta, haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, severe sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism and pregnancy at advanced maternal age (≥ 48 years at completion of pregnancy); factors associated with progression from severe morbidity to death; associations between severe maternal morbidity and ethnicity and socioeconomic status; lessons for care identified by local and external review; economic evaluation of interventions for management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH); women’s experiences of near-miss maternal morbidity; long-term outcomes; and models of maternity care commissioned through experience-led and standard approaches. Results Women and their partners reported long-term impacts of near-miss maternal morbidities on their physical and mental health. Older maternal age and caesarean delivery are associated with severe maternal morbidity in both current and future pregnancies. Antibiotic prescription for pregnant or postpartum women with suspected infection does not necessarily prevent progression to severe sepsis, which may be rapidly progressive. Delay in delivery, of up to 48 hours, may be safely undertaken in women with HELLP syndrome in whom there is no fetal compromise. Uterine compression sutures are a cost-effective second-line therapy for PPH. Medical comorbidities are associated with a fivefold increase in the odds of maternal death from direct pregnancy complications. External reviews identified more specific clinical messages for care than local reviews. Experience-led commissioning may be used as a way to commission maternity services. Limitations This programme used observational studies, some with limited sample size, and the possibility of uncontrolled confounding cannot be excluded. Conclusions Implementation of the findings of this research could prevent both future severe pregnancy complications as well as improving the outcome of pregnancy for women. One of the clearest findings relates to the population of women with other medical and mental health problems in pregnancy and their risk of severe morbidity. Further research into models of pre-pregnancy, pregnancy and postnatal care is clearly needed

Disclosure, Apology, and Offer Programs: Stakeholders’ Views of Barriers to and Strategies for Broad Implementation

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94445/1/j.1468-0009.2012.00679.x.pd

Awareness in Practice: Tensions in Access to Sensitive Attribute Data for Antidiscrimination

Organizations cannot address demographic disparities that they cannot see. Recent research on machine learning and fairness has emphasized that awareness of sensitive attributes, such as race and sex, is critical to the development of interventions. However, on the ground, the existence of these data cannot be taken for granted. This paper uses the domains of employment, credit, and healthcare in the United States to surface conditions that have shaped the availability of sensitive attribute data. For each domain, we describe how and when private companies collect or infer sensitive attribute data for antidiscrimination purposes. An inconsistent story emerges: Some companies are required by law to collect sensitive attribute data, while others are prohibited from doing so. Still others, in the absence of legal mandates, have determined that collection and imputation of these data are appropriate to address disparities. This story has important implications for fairness research and its future applications. If companies that mediate access to life opportunities are unable or hesitant to collect or infer sensitive attribute data, then proposed techniques to detect and mitigate bias in machine learning models might never be implemented outside the lab. We conclude that today's legal requirements and corporate practices, while highly inconsistent across domains, offer lessons for how to approach the collection and inference of sensitive data in appropriate circumstances. We urge stakeholders, including machine learning practitioners, to actively help chart a path forward that takes both policy goals and technical needs into account

What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up? A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background Following primary surgical and adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing. Objective To determine how the CEA test result should be interpreted to inform the decision to undertake further investigation to detect treatable recurrences. Design Two studies were conducted: (1) a Cochrane review of existing studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of blood CEA testing for detecting colorectal recurrence; and (2) a secondary analysis of data from the two arms of the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial in which CEA testing was carried out. Setting and participants The secondary analysis was based on data from 582 patients recruited into the FACS trial between 2003 and 2009 from 39 NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence and followed up for 5 years. CEA testing was undertaken in general practice. Results In the systematic review we identified 52 studies for meta-analysis, including in aggregate 9717 participants (median study sample size 139, interquartile range 72–247). Pooled sensitivity at the most commonly recommended threshold in national guidelines of 5 µg/l was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64% to 76%] and specificity was 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the secondary analysis of FACS data, the diagnostic accuracy of a single CEA test was less than was suggested by the review [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80]. At the commonly recommended threshold of 5 µg/l, sensitivity was estimated as 50.0% (95% CI 40.1% to 59.9%) and lead time as about 3 months. About four in 10 patients without a recurrence will have at least one false alarm and six out of 10 tests will be false alarms (some patients will have multiple false alarms, particularly smokers). Making decisions to further investigate based on the trend in serial CEA measurements is better (AUC for positive trend 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91), but to maintain approximately 70% sensitivity with 90% specificity it is necessary to increase the frequency of testing in year 1 and to apply a reducing threshold for investigation as measurements accrue. Limitations The reference standards were imperfect and the main analysis was subject to work-up bias and had limited statistical precision and no external validation. Conclusions The results suggest that (1) CEA testing should not be used alone as a triage test; (2) in year 1, testing frequency should be increased (to monthly for 3 months and then every 2 months); (3) the threshold for investigating a single test result should be raised to 10 µg/l; (4) after the second CEA test, decisions to investigate further should be made on the basis of the trend in CEA levels; (5) the optimal threshold for investigating the CEA trend falls over time; and (6) continuing smokers should not be monitored with CEA testing. Further research is needed to explore the operational feasibility of monitoring the trend in CEA levels and to externally validate the proposed thresholds for further investigation. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015019327 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93652154. Funding The main FACS trial and this substudy were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Development and validation of the needs of children questionnaire: An instrument to measure children\u27s self-reported needs in hospital

AIM: To develop and psychometrically test the needs of children questionnaire (NCQ), a new instrument to measure school-aged children\u27s self-reported psychosocial physical and emotional needs in paediatric wards. DESIGN: This is an instrument development study based on recommendations for developing a reliable and valid questionnaire. METHOD: The NCQ was developed over three phases between February 2013-April 2017 and included item generation; content adequacy assessment; questionnaire administration; factor analysis; internal consistency assessment and construct validity. Psychometric properties were assessed after 193 school-aged children completed the needs of children\u27s questionnaire in four paediatric areas in Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: The development and validation of the NCQ over two countries resulted in a 16-item, four-category tool to measure the self-reported importance and fulfilment of school-aged children\u27s needs in hospital. Cronbach\u27s alpha for the combined samples was 0.93. CONCLUSION: The NCQ bridges a gap to measure the level of importance and fulfilment of school-aged children\u27s self-reported needs in hospital. Future testing and validation is needed in other paediatric areas and countries. IMPACT: The 16-item NCQ is a valid measure to evaluate if the quality of care delivered and received in hospital is in line with what children self-report as important and required and to date indicates good usability and utility. Child self-reports are essential to inform healthcare delivery, policy, research and theory development from a child and family-centred care lens that honours the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the best interests of the child

QUERI and implementation research: Emerging from adolescence into adulthood: QUERI Series

The Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) program and implementation research have both come of age in the 10 years since QUERI was established. Looking forward, if QUERI and the field of implementation science are to mature successfully, we will need to address a series of challenges. First, we need to more clearly demonstrate how applying principles of implementation science leads to more effective implementation and communicate those lessons to our partners and funders. Second, we will need to engage in the ongoing debate over methodological standards in quality improvement and implementation research. Third, a program like QUERI needs to become more relevant to the daily decisions of key stakeholders. Fourth, if we hope to sustain interest in implementation science, we will need to demonstrate the business case for more effective implementation. Fifth, we need to think creatively about how to nurture the next generations of implementation researchers and front-line "connectors," who are critical for accelerating implementation. Finally, we need to strengthen the connections between implementation research and the other operational and research activities that influence change in healthcare systems

Effects of Health Insurance on Perceived Quality of Care Among Latinos in the United States

There is suggestive evidence that lower rates of health insurance coverage increases the gaps in quality and access to care among Latinos as compared with non-Latino whites. In order to examine these potential disparities, we assessed the effects of insurance coverage and multiple covariates on perceived quality of care. To assess the distribution of perceived quality of care received in a national Latino population sample, and the role of insurance in different patient subgroups. Telephone interviews conducted between 2007 and 2008 using the Pew Hispanic Center/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Latino Health Surveys (Waves 1 and 2). Randomly selected Latino adults aged ≥18 years living in the United States. Pearson χ2 tests identified associations among various demographic variables by quality of care ratings (poor, fair, good, excellent) for the insured and uninsured (Wave 1: N = 3545). Subgroup analyses were conducted among Wave 2 participants reporting chronic conditions (N = 1067). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to estimate the effects of insurance, demographic variables and consumer characteristics on quality of care. Insurance availability had an odds ratio of 1.47 (95% CI, 1.22–1.76) net of confounders in predicting perceived quality of care among Latinos. The largest gap in rates of excellent/good ratings occurred among the insured with eight or more doctor visits compared to the uninsured (76.2% vs. 54.6%, P &lt; .05). Future research can gain additional insights by examining the impact of health insurance on processes of care with a refined focus on specific transactions between consumers and providers’ support staff and physicians guided by the principles of patient-centered care

Association between community health center and rural health clinic presence and county-level hospitalization rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: an analysis across eight US states

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Federally qualified community health centers (CHCs) and rural health clinics (RHCs) are intended to provide access to care for vulnerable populations. While some research has explored the effects of CHCs on population health, little information exists regarding RHC effects. We sought to clarify the contribution that CHCs and RHCs may make to the accessibility of primary health care, as measured by county-level rates of hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted an ecologic analysis of the relationship between facility presence and county-level hospitalization rates, using 2002 discharge data from eight states within the US (579 counties). Counties were categorized by facility availability: CHC(s) only, RHC(s) only, both (CHC and RHC), and neither. US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality definitions were used to identify ACS diagnoses. Discharge rates were based on the individual's county of residence and were obtained by dividing ACS hospitalizations by the relevant county population. We calculated ACS rates separately for children, working age adults, and older individuals, and for uninsured children and working age adults. To ensure stable rates, we excluded counties having fewer than 1,000 residents in the child or working age adult categories, or 500 residents among those 65 and older. Multivariate Poisson analysis was used to calculate adjusted rate ratios.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among working age adults, rate ratio (RR) comparing ACS hospitalization rates for CHC-only counties to those of counties with neither facility was 0.86 (95% Confidence Interval, CI, 0.78–0.95). Among older adults, the rate ratio for CHC-only counties compared to counties with neither facility was 0.84 (CI 0.81–0.87); for counties with both CHC and RHC present, the RR was 0.88 (CI 0.84–0.92). No CHC/RHC effects were found for children. No effects were found on estimated hospitalization rates among uninsured populations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results suggest that CHCs and RHCs may play a useful role in providing access to primary health care. Their presence in a county may help to limit the county's rate of hospitalization for ACS diagnoses, particularly among older people.</p

Health Equity Indicators for the English NHS: a longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level

Background: Inequalities in health-care access and outcomes raise concerns about quality of care and justice, and the NHS has a statutory duty to consider reducing them. Objectives: The objectives were to (1) develop indicators of socioeconomic inequality in health-care access and outcomes at different stages of the patient pathway; (2) develop methods for monitoring local NHS equity performance in tackling socioeconomic health-care inequalities; (3) track the evolution of socioeconomic health-care inequalities in the 2000s; and (4) develop ‘equity dashboards’ for communicating equity findings to decision-makers in a clear and concise format. Design: Longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level. Setting: England from 2001/2 to 2011/12. Participants: A total of 32,482 small-area neighbourhoods (lower-layer super output areas) of approximately 1500 people. Main outcome measures: Slope index of inequality gaps between the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in England, adjusted for need or risk, for (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) inpatient hospital waiting time, (4) emergency hospitalisation for chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, (5) repeat emergency hospitalisation in the same year, (6) dying in hospital, (7) mortality amenable to health care and (8) overall mortality. Data sources: Practice-level workforce data from the general practice census (indicator 1), practice-level Quality and Outcomes Framework data (indicator 2), inpatient hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics (indicators 3–6) and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (indicators 6–8). Results: Between 2004/5 and 2011/12, more deprived neighbourhoods gained larger absolute improvements on all indicators except waiting time, repeat hospitalisation and dying in hospital. In 2011/12, there was little measurable inequality in primary care supply and quality, but inequality was associated with 171,119 preventable hospitalisations and 41,123 deaths amenable to health care. In 2011/12, > 20% of Clinical Commissioning Groups performed statistically significantly better or worse than the England equity benchmark. Limitations: General practitioner supply is a limited measure of primary care access, need in deprived neighbourhoods may be underestimated because of a lack of data on multimorbidity, and the quality and outcomes indicators capture only one aspect of primary care quality. Health-care outcomes are adjusted for age and sex but not for other risk factors that contribute to unequal health-care outcomes and may be outside the control of the NHS, so they overestimate the extent of inequality for which the NHS can reasonably be held responsible. Conclusions: NHS actions can have a measurable impact on socioeconomic inequality in both health-care access and outcomes. Reducing inequality in health-care outcomes is more challenging than reducing inequality of access to health care. Local health-care equity monitoring against a national benchmark can be performed using any administrative geography comprising ≥ 100,000 people