Barwise, Amelia

Abstract Background Intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians encounter frequent challenges with managing vast amounts of fragmented data while caring for multiple critically ill patients simultaneously. This may lead to increased provider cognitive load that may jeopardize patient safety. Objectives This systematic review assesses the impact of centralized multipatient dashboards on ICU clinician performance, perceptions regarding the use of these tools, and patient outcomes. Methods A literature search was conducted on February 9, 2023, using the EBSCO CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, IEEE Xplore, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases. Eligible studies that included ICU clinicians as participants and tested the effect of dashboards designed for use by multiple users to manage multiple patients on user performance and/or satisfaction compared with the standard practice. We narratively synthesized eligible studies following the SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) guidelines. Studies were grouped based on dashboard type and outcomes assessed. Results The search yielded a total of 2,407 studies. Five studies met inclusion criteria and were included. Among these, three studies evaluated interactive displays in the ICU, one study assessed two dashboards in the pediatric ICU (PICU), and one study examined centralized monitor in the PICU. Most studies reported several positive outcomes, including reductions in data gathering time before rounds, a decrease in misrepresentations during multidisciplinary rounds, improved daily documentation compliance, faster decision-making, and user satisfaction. One study did not report any significant association. Conclusion The multipatient dashboards were associated with improved ICU clinician performance and were positively perceived in most of the included studies. The risk of bias was high, and the certainty of evidence was very low, due to inconsistencies, imprecision, indirectness in the outcome measure, and methodological limitations. Designing and evaluating multipatient tools using robust research methodologies is an important focus for future research.

Abstract Background The electronic health record (EHR) presents new opportunities for the timely identification of patients at high risk of critical illness and the implementation of preventive strategies. This study aims to externally validate an EHR‐based Elders Risk Assessment (ERA) score to identify older patients at high risk of future critical illness during a primary care visit. Methods This historical cohort study included patients aged ≥65 years who had primary care visits at Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN, between July 2019 and December 2021. The ERA score at the time of the primary care visit was used to predict critical illness, defined as death or ICU admission within 1 year of the visit. Results A total of 12,885 patients were included in the analysis. The median age at the time of the primary care visit was 75 years, with 44.6% being male. 93.7% of participants were White, and 64.2% were married. The median (25th, 75th percentile) ERA score was 4 (0, 9). 11.3% of study participants were admitted to the ICU or died within 1 year of the visit. The ERA score predicted critical illness within 1 year of a primary care visit with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83–0.85), which indicates good discrimination. An ERA score of 9 was identified as optimal for implementing and testing potential preventive strategies, with the odds ratio of having the primary outcome in patients with ERA score ≥9 being 11.33 (95%CI 9.98–12.87). Conclusions This simple EHR‐based risk assessment model can predict critical illness within 1 year of primary care visits in older patients. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for testing and implementation of preventive strategies to promote the well‐being of older adults at risk of critical illness and its consequences.

AbstractObjectivesThirty‐five states, including Florida, now cover cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) screening of fetuses for all pregnant patients enrolled in state public insurance programs. We interviewed Black and Hispanic obstetric patients at a safety net clinic in Florida shortly after the state rolled out cfDNA as a first‐tier screening method for publicly insured patients.MethodsBlack and Hispanic patients receiving prenatal care from a prenatal or maternal fetal medicine clinic at a federally qualified health center in Jacksonville, FL were invited to participate in a qualitative interview in English or Spanish to explore experiences and perceptions of prenatal cfDNA screening. Participants were recruited following their first prenatal visit when cfDNA is typically introduced. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes based on principles of grounded theory.ResultsOne hundred Black and Hispanic patients (n = 51 non‐Hispanic Black, n = 43 Hispanic, n = 3 Hispanic Black, n = 3 Not Reported/Other) completed an interview. Participants described minimal opportunity for pre‐screening counseling and limited health literacy about cfDNA or its uses. Some believed that cfDNA could positively impact pregnancy health. Many were unsure if they had received cfDNA even though they were aware of the information provided by it. Most participants expressed an interest in cfDNA as a means for early detection of fetal sex and as an additional indication of general fetal health.ConclusionsPatient experiences indicate limited informed consent and decision‐making for cfDNA, discordant with professional guidelines on pre‐screen counseling. Our findings suggest that there should be additional investment in implementing cfDNA in safety net settings to ensure that patients and providers receive the support necessary for effective patient counseling and follow‐on care for the ethical implementation of cfDNA.

Objective: Given limited critical care resources and an aging population, early interventions to prevent critical illness are vital. In this work, we measured post-implementation outcomes after introducing a novel electronic scoring system (Elders Risk Assessment—ERA) and a risk-factor checklist, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN), to detect older patients at high risk of critical illness in a primary care setting. Methods: The study was conducted at a family medicine clinic in Kasson, MN. The ADAPT-ITT framework was used to modify the CERTAIN checklist for primary care during 2 co-design workshops involving interdisciplinary clinicians, held in April 2023. The ERA score and modified CERTAIN checklist were implemented between May and July 2023 and identify and assess all patients age ≥60 years at risk of critical illness during their primary care visits. Implementation outcomes were evaluated at the end of the study via an anonymous survey and EHR data extraction. Results: Fourteen clinicians participated in 2 co-design workshops. A total of 19 clinicians participated in a post-pilot survey. All survey items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale. Mean acceptability of the ERA score and checklist was rated 3.35 (SD = 0.75) and 3.09 (SD = 0.64), respectively. Appropriateness had a mean rating of 3.38 (SD = 0.82) for the ERA score and 3.19 (SD = 0.59) for the checklist. Mean feasibility was rated 3.38(SD = 0.85) and 2.92 (SD = 0.76) for the ERA score and checklist, respectively. The adoption rate was 50% (19/38) among clinicians, but the reach was low at 17% (49/289) of eligible patients. Conclusions: This pilot study evaluated the implementation of an intervention that introduced the ERA score and CERTAIN checklist into a primary care practice. Results indicate moderate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the ERA score, and similar ratings for the checklist, with slightly lower feasibility. While checklist adoption was moderate, reach was limited, indicating inconsistent use. Recommendations: We plan to use the open-ended resurvey responses to further modify the CERTAIN-FM checklist and implementation process. The ADAPT-ITT framework is a useful model for adapting the checklist to meet the primary care clinician needs.

Abstract Objectives Inpatients with language barriers and complex medical needs suffer disparities in quality of care, safety, and health outcomes. Although in-person interpreters are particularly beneficial for these patients, they are underused. We plan to use machine learning predictive analytics to reliably identify patients with language barriers and complex medical needs to prioritize them for in-person interpreters. Materials and methods This qualitative study used stakeholder engagement through semi-structured interviews to understand the perceived risks and benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) in this domain. Stakeholders included clinicians, interpreters, and personnel involved in caring for these patients or for organizing interpreters. Data were coded and analyzed using NVIVO software. Results We completed 49 interviews. Key perceived risks included concerns about transparency, accuracy, redundancy, privacy, perceived stigmatization among patients, alert fatigue, and supply–demand issues. Key perceived benefits included increased awareness of in-person interpreters, improved standard of care and prioritization for interpreter utilization; a streamlined process for accessing interpreters, empowered clinicians, and potential to overcome clinician bias. Discussion This is the first study that elicits stakeholder perspectives on the use of AI with the goal of improved clinical care for patients with language barriers. Perceived benefits and risks related to the use of AI in this domain, overlapped with known hazards and values of AI but some benefits were unique for addressing challenges with providing interpreter services to patients with language barriers. Conclusion Artificial intelligence to identify and prioritize patients for interpreter services has the potential to improve standard of care and address healthcare disparities among patients with language barriers.