Evaluating implementation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevention guidelines in spinal cord injury centers using the PARIHS framework: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: To prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Spinal Cord Injury and Disorder (SCI/D) Centers, the Guidelines for Implementation of MRSA Prevention Initiative in the Spinal Cord Injury Centers were released in July 2008 in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System. The purpose of this study was to use the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Systems (PARiHS) framework to evaluate the experiences of implementation of SCI/D MRSA prevention guidelines in VA SCI/D Centers approximately 2-3 years after the guidelines were released. METHODS: Mixed methods were used across two phases in this study. The first phase included an anonymous, web-based cross-sectional survey administered to providers at all 24 VA SCI/D Centers. The second phase included semi-structured telephone interviews with providers at 9 SCI/D Centers. The PARiHS framework was used as the foundation of both the survey questions and semi-structured interview guide. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 295 SCI/D providers (43.8 % response rate) from 22 of the 24 SCI/D Centers (91.7 % participation rate). Respondents included nurses (57.3 %), therapists (24.4 %), physicians (11.1 %), physician assistants (3.4 %), and other health care professionals (3.8 %). Approximately 36 % of the SCI/D providers surveyed had not seen, did not remember seeing, or had never heard of the MRSA SCI/D guidelines, whereas 42.3 % of providers reported that the MRSA SCI/D guidelines were fully implemented in their SCI/D Center. Data revealed numerous barriers and facilitators to guideline implementation. Facilitators included enhanced leadership support and provider education, focused guideline dissemination to reach SCI/D providers, and strong perceived evidence supporting the guidelines. Barriers included lack of awareness of the guidelines among physical therapists and physician assistants and challenges in cohorting/isolating MRSA-positive patients and following contact precautions. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of MRSA infection prevention guidelines in SCI/D settings requires (1) guideline dissemination that reaches the full range of SCI/D providers working in inpatient, outpatient, and other care settings, (2) provider education that is frequent and systematic, (3) strong leadership support, and (4) that barriers unique to the recommendations are addressed. These findings may be used to inform selection of implementation strategies and optimize infection prevention beyond MRSA as well as in other specialty care populations

Developing standardized patient-based cases for communication training: lessons learned from training residents to communicate diagnostic uncertainty.

Health professions education has benefitted from standardized patient (SP) programs to develop and refine communication and interpersonal skills in trainees. Effective case design is essential to ensure an SP encounter successfully meets learning objectives that are focused on communication skills. Creative, well-designed case scenarios offer learners the opportunity to engage in complex patient encounters, while challenging them to address the personal and emotional contexts in which their patients are situated. Therefore, prior to considering the practical execution of the patient encounter, educators will first need a clear and structured strategy for writing, organizing, and developing cases. The authors reflect on lessons learned in developing standardized patient-based cases to train learners to communicate to patients during times of diagnostic uncertainty, and provide suggestions to develop a set of simulation cases that are both standardized and diverse. Key steps and workflow processes that can assist educators with case design are introduced. The authors review the need to increase awareness of and mitigate existing norms and implicit biases, while maximizing variation in patient diversity. Opportunities to leverage the breadth of emotional dispositions of the SP and the affective domain of a clinical encounter are also discussed as a means to guide future case development and maximize the value of a case for its respective learning outcomes

Development of the Uncertainty Communication Checklist: A Patient-Centered Approach to Patient Discharge From the Emergency Department

Clear communication with patients upon emergency department (ED) discharge is important for patient safety during the transition to outpatient care. Over one-third of patients are discharged from the ED with diagnostic uncertainty, yet there is no established approach for effective discharge communication in this scenario. From 2017 to 2019, the authors developed the Uncertainty Communication Checklist for use in simulation-based training and assessment of emergency physician communication skills when discharging patients with diagnostic uncertainty. This development process followed the established 12-step Checklist Development Checklist framework and integrated patient feedback into 6 of the 12 steps. Patient input was included as it has potential to improve patient-centeredness of checklists related to assessment of clinical performance. Focus group patient participants from 2 clinical sites were included: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, and Northwestern University Hospital, Chicago, Illinois. The authors developed a preliminary instrument based on existing checklists, clinical experience, literature review, and input from an expert panel comprising health care professionals and patient advocates. They then refined the instrument based on feedback from 2 waves of patient focus groups, resulting in a final 21-item checklist. The checklist items assess if uncertainty was addressed in each step of the discharge communication, including the following major categories: introduction, test results/ED summary, no/uncertain diagnosis, next steps/follow-up, home care, reasons to return, and general communication skills. Patient input influenced both what items were included and the wording of items in the final checklist. This patient-centered, systematic approach to checklist development is built upon the rigor of the Checklist Development Checklist and provides an illustration of how to integrate patient feedback into the design of assessment tools when appropriate

Simulation-based mastery learning compared to standard education for discussing diagnostic uncertainty with patients in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic uncertainty occurs frequently in emergency medical care, with more than one-third of patients leaving the emergency department (ED) without a clear diagnosis. Despite this frequency, ED providers are not adequately trained on how to discuss diagnostic uncertainty with these patients, who often leave the ED confused and concerned. To address this training need, we developed the Uncertainty Communication Education Module (UCEM) to teach physicians how to discuss diagnostic uncertainty. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the UCEM in improving physician communications. METHODS: The trial is a multicenter, two-arm randomized controlled trial designed to teach communication skills using simulation-based mastery learning (SBML). Resident emergency physicians from two training programs will be randomly assigned to immediate or delayed receipt of the two-part UCEM intervention after completing a baseline standardized patient encounter. The two UCEM components are: 1) a web-based interactive module, and 2) a smart-phone-based game. Both formats teach and reinforce communication skills for patient cases involving diagnostic uncertainty. Following baseline testing, participants in the immediate intervention arm will complete a remote deliberate practice session via a video platform and subsequently return for a second study visit to assess if they have achieved mastery. Participants in the delayed intervention arm will receive access to UCEM and remote deliberate practice after the second study visit. The primary outcome of interest is the proportion of residents in the immediate intervention arm who achieve mastery at the second study visit. DISCUSSION: Patients\u27 understanding of the care they received has implications for care quality, safety, and patient satisfaction, especially when they are discharged without a definitive diagnosis. Developing a patient-centered diagnostic uncertainty communication strategy will improve safety of acute care discharges. Although use of SBML is a resource intensive educational approach, this trial has been deliberately designed to have a low-resource, scalable intervention that would allow for widespread dissemination and uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04021771). Registration date: July 16, 2019

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Preferences and motivation for weight loss among knee replacement patients: implications for a patient-centered weight loss intervention

Abstract Background Most knee replacement patients are overweight/obese, yet are commonly excluded from evidence-based weight loss programs due to mobility limitations and barriers faced around the time of surgery. The purpose of this study was to identify knee replacement patient preferences for weight loss programs and qualitatively understand previous motives for weight loss attempts as well as strategies used to facilitate behavior changes. Methods Patients who were either scheduled to have knee replacement or had one recently completed within the last 3 months were recruited to participate. Patients completed a brief weight loss program preference questionnaire assessing preferred components of a weight loss program (i.e. self-monitoring, educational topics, program duration). Qualitative interviews were completed to identify motives for and strategies used during past weight loss attempts. All interviews were transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using constant comparative analysis. Results Twenty patients (11 pre-operative and 9 post-operative) between 47 and 79 years completed the study (55% male, 90% White, and 85% with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2). Patients reported a preference for a weight loss program that starts before surgery, is at least 6 months in duration, and focuses both on diet and exercise. The majority of patients preferred to have a telephone-based program and wanted to track diet and physical activity on a smartphone application. The most common motive for weight loss mentioned by patients related to physical appearance (including how clothing fit), followed by wanting to lose weight to improve knee symptoms or to prevent or delay knee replacement. Strategies that patients identified as helpful during weight loss attempts included joining a formal weight loss program, watching portion sizes, and self-monitoring their dietary intake, physical activity, or weight. Conclusions This study provides a preliminary examination into the motives for weight loss, strategies utilized during past weight loss attempts, and preferences for future weight loss programs as described by knee replacement patients. These results will help guide the development and adaptation of future patient-centered weight loss programs as well as help clinicians recommend targeted weight programs based on the specific preferences of the knee replacement population

Admission handoff communications: clinician\u27s shared understanding of patient severity of illness and problems.

OBJECTIVE: Communication errors are a leading cause of medical mistakes. Handoff communications during the admission of a patient are a critical point of communication during which patient care is transferred from one clinician to another. The transmission of the patient\u27s current severity of illness and active problems is integral to this communication. Our objective was to determine if this information is conveyed by the current handoff process between resident physicians. METHODS: We recorded admission handoff communications between residents and then asked each resident to independently rate the patient\u27s severity of illness and to list the patient\u27s problems. The scores and lists were compared for agreement. Attending physicians listened to the recordings and also assessed severity of illness and patient\u27s problem lists. RESULTS: Three quarters of the handoffs had agreement about the severity of the patient\u27s illness. However, there was low agreement about the most severe problem and the total problem lists between residents involved in the handoff communication. Attending physicians were able to identify more patient problems. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that information needed to assess the patient\u27s severity of illness and problems may have been present in the handoff communications but may not have been fully received and integrated by the residents. In addition, attending physicians may have an additional capacity to infer information, perhaps because of prior clinical experience or expertise. This study implies that residents may need more formal education, training, and evaluation of their handoffs to improve patient safety