Melnick, Edward R.

Abstract Objectives To measure nurse-perceived electronic health records (EHR) usability with a standardized metric of technology usability and evaluate its association with professional burnout. Methods A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of US nurses was conducted in November 2017. EHR usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS; range 0–100) and burnout with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Results Among the 86 858 nurses who were invited, 8638 (9.9%) completed the survey. The mean nurse-rated EHR SUS score was 57.6 (SD 16.3). A score of 57.6 is in the bottom 24% of scores across previous studies and categorized with a grade of “F.” On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, gender, race, ethnicity, relationship status, children, highest nursing-related degree, mean hours worked per week, years of nursing experience, advanced certification, and practice setting, nurse-rated EHR usability was associated with burnout with each 1 point more favorable SUS score and associated with a 2% lower odds of burnout (OR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97–0.99; P < .001). Conclusions Nurses rated the usability of their current EHR in the low marginal range of acceptability using a standardized metric of technology usability. EHR usability and the odds of burnout were strongly associated with a dose-response relationship.

Abstract Background The validated Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) rule helps determine the relevance of a head computerized tomography (CT) for children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). We sought to estimate the potential overuse of head CT within two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of children seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma centre. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with head trauma. Simple descriptive statistics were applied. Results One thousand five hundred and forty-six eligible patients younger than 17 years consulted during the study period. Of the 203 randomly selected cases per setting, 16 (7.9%) and 24 (12%), respectively from sites 1 and 2 had a head CT performed. Based on the PECARN rule, we estimated the overuse for the younger group (<2 years) to be below 3% for both hospitals without significant difference between them. For the older group (≥2 years), the overuse rate was higher at site 2 (9.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.8 to 17% versus 1.2%, 95% CI: 0.2 to 6.5%, P=0.03). Conclusion Both EDs demonstrated overuse rates below 10% although it was higher for the older group at site 2. Such low rates can potentially be explained by the university affiliation of both hospitals and by two Canadian organizations working to raise awareness among physicians about the overuse of diagnostic tools and dangers inherent to radiation.

Abstract BACKGROUND Head computerized tomography (CT) increases the risk of cancer in children and should be carefully prescribed to paediatric patients with head injury. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) validated a rule to identify children at risk of a clinically important traumatic brain injury (TBI) needing a head CT. OBJECTIVES The objective was to evaluate adherence to the PECARN rule as a function of CT overuse (defined as a prescribed CT when not recommended by the rule) and underuse rates (no CT performed when recommended) in two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of children under 17 years of age seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma center. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with a head trauma. Mandatory inclusion criteria were (1) that the head trauma occurred in the 24 hours prior to arrival to the ED, (2) a GCS over 13 and (3) and at least one sign or symptom of minor TBI. Patients with a special condition that could have influenced the decision to order a head CT were automatically excluded. When a patient did not receive a head CT when recommended by the rule, we reviewed medical records to determine if the patient has returned to the ED after his discharge within the next 30 days. RESULTS 1546 eligible patients younger than 17 years consulted during the study period. Of the 203 randomly selected cases per setting, 16 (7.9%) and 24 (12%) respectively from sites 1 and 2 had a head CT performed. For the younger group (< 2), both overuse and underuse rates were below 3%. For the older group, overuse rates were higher in site 2 (9.3% (95%CI:4.8–17%) vs. 1.2% (95%CI:0.2–6.5%) (P=.03)) and there was no difference in underuse rates (22% (95%CI:6.3–55%) vs 39% (95%CI:18–65%) (P=.65)). For children who did not receive a head CT when recommended, none returned to the ED for a related complication. CONCLUSION Overall, even if there may be slightly more overuse of head CTs in the Level II trauma center, results showed an excellent agreement with the PECARN rule when CT was not recommended. However, results also showed a deviation when CT was recommended, where a higher portion of patients than expected did not receive a head CT. Reasons to explain this behaviour will need further exploration.

AbstractDecision aids are evidenced‐based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding “Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy‐Relevant, Patient‐Centered Research Agenda.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of SDM interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: 1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), 2) level of evidence available, 3) tool design strategies, 4) risk communication, 5) stakeholders, and 6) outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundOveruse of computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury continues despite developed and rigorously validated clinical decision rules like the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR). Adherence to this sensitive and specific rule could decrease the number of CT scans performed in minor head injury by 35%. But in practice, the CCHR has failed to reduce testing, despite its accurate performance.ObjectivesThe objective was to identify nonclinical, human factors that promote or inhibit the appropriate use of CT in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with minor head injury.MethodsThis was a qualitative study in three phases, each with interview guides developed by a multidisciplinary team. Subjects were recruited from patients treated and released with minor head injuries and providers in an urban academic ED and a satellite community ED. Focus groups of patients (four groups, 22 subjects total) and providers (three groups, 22 subjects total) were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. The findings from the focus groups were triangulated with a cognitive task analysis, including direct observation in the ED (>150 hours), and individual semistructured interviews using the critical decision method with four senior physician subject matter experts. These experts are recognized by their peers for their skill in safely minimizing testing while maintaining patient safety and engagement. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and notes were taken by two independent note takers. Notes were entered into ATLAS.ti and analyzed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory, an iterative coding process to determine themes. Data were double‐coded and examined for discrepancies to establish consensus.ResultsFive core domains emerged from the analysis: establishing trust, anxiety (patient and provider), constraints related to ED practice, the influence of others, and patient expectations. Key themes within these domains included patient engagement, provider confidence and experience, ability to identify and manage patient anxiety, time constraints, concussion knowledge gap, influence of health care providers, and patient expectations to get a CT.ConclusionsDespite high‐quality evidence informing use of CT in minor head injury, multiple factors influence the decision to obtain CT in practice. Identifying and disseminating approaches and designing systems that help clinicians establish trust and manage uncertainty within the ED context could optimize CT use in minor head injury.