Why are we misdiagnosing urinary tract infection in older patients? A qualitative inquiry and roadmap for staff behaviour change in the emergency department

Aim: This study sough to determine the psychological and behavioural factors contributing to the incorrect diagnosis of urinary tract infection in older adults and identify potential interventions that can address the incorrect diagnosis of urinary tract infection in older adults? Findings: The findings were that the misdiagnosis of UTI, particularly in older people, is driven by complex, interconnected psychological and behavioural factors, such as lack of knowledge on the role of urine dip testing, bias towards older people, automatic testing, time and resource constraints, pressures from peers and patients and legal pressures. Developing interventions that address the disconnect between knowledge and practice by encompassing both psychological and behavioural factors may improve patient safety and staff satisfaction. Messages: Urine dipstick testing in the ED is often misinterpreted, leading to misdiagnosis which may then impact negatively on patient safety; the reasons this knowledge-practice disconnect exists are multi-factorial, but psychological and behavioural factors play a significant role. Systematic approaches incorporating these factors can potentially improve patient safety, efficiency, costs from unnecessary testing and staff satisfaction

What are the goals of care for older people living with frailty when they access urgent care? Are those goals attained? A qualitative view of patient and carer perspectives

Study objective: Little is known of the goals of care of older people living with frailty when they access urgent care. Equally whether these goals are attained from a patient and carer perspective is often unclear. This qualitative study examined the views of older people living with frailty and their families in relation to specific episodes of urgent care, what they wanted to achieve and whether those goals were attained. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with older people living with frailty and their families between Jan and July 2019. Patient and carer participants were recruited in three hospitals in England and interviewed following the urgent care episode. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed following the principles of the Framework approach. Results were validated by an older people's involvement group. Results: Forty participants were interviewed either alone or jointly (24 patients and 16 carers), describing episodes of urgent care which started in ED for 28 patients. The goals of care for participants accessing emergency care were that their medical problem be diagnosed and resolved; information about tests and treatment be given to them and their relatives; they receive an appropriate well-planned discharge to their own home with support where needed and without readmission or re-attendance at ED; and that they retain mobility, function and normal activities. Participants perceived that many of these goals of care were not attained. Conclusions: Older people living with frailty have heterogeneous urgent care goals which require individual ascertainment. Identifying these goals of care early could result in improved attainment through person-centred care

Co-producing Progression Criteria for Feasibility Studies: A Partnership between Patient Contributors, Clinicians and Researchers.

There is a lack of guidance for developing progression criteria (PC) within feasibility studies. We describe a process for co-producing PC for an ongoing feasibility study. Patient contributors, clinicians and researchers participated in discussions facilitated using the modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT). Stage one involved individual discussion groups used to develop and rank PC for aspects of the trial key to feasibility. A second stage involving representatives from each of the individual groups then discussed and ranked these PC. The highest ranking PC became the criteria used. At each stage all members were provided with a brief education session to aid understanding and decision-making. Fifty members (15 (29%) patients, 13 (25%) researchers and 24 (46%) clinicians) were involved in eight initial groups, and eight (two (25%) patients, five (62%) clinicians, one (13%) researcher) in one final group. PC relating to eligibility, recruitment, intervention and outcome acceptability and loss to follow-up were co-produced. Groups highlighted numerous means of adapting intervention and trial procedures should 'change' criteria be met. Modified NGT enabled the equal inclusion of patients, clinician and researcher in the co-production of PC. The structure and processes provided a transparent mechanism for setting PC that could be replicated in other feasibility studies