Barwise, Amelia

Abstract Background: The Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) study is a before-and-after clinical quality improvement study involving 20 countries. Our aim was to describe the challenges and solutions for study implementation across various intensive care units.Methods: After local institutional review board approval, each study center had a setup period before patient data were collected. Each center was required to accomplish 4 stages: baseline data collection, remote simulation training, local implementation, and postimplementation data collection and maintenance of process of care. We measured the time required to complete each study stage and used the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) framework to identify the challenges encountered during each stage and guide improvement strategies to facilitate implementation of CERTAIN.Results: Between June 2012 and December 2017, 55 centers from 20 countries were recruited to participate. The time to complete each stage at different centers varied significantly. The most common domains in which challenges occurred were 1) leadership support and team building, 2) communication, 3) work environment culture, 4) language barriers, 5) infrastructure and technology, and 6) sustainability. Obstacles in these 6 areas delayed reaching major milestones of the study. Different strategies were deployed to overcome these barriers: engaging leadership for support, using native-speaking clinicians during training sessions, using various communication platforms, providing personal computers to local hospitals, making in-person site visits, offering flexible training time, and supporting local centers’ grant applications. Centers that enrolled during the control phase, compared with those that enrolled earlier, had significantly shorter times and less variation in times for each study stage and for the total study time.Conclusions: By using the DMAIC method, we identified the predominant 6 domains in which challenges occurred during implementation of the global CERTAIN study and developed targeted strategies to overcome the challenges and shorten the duration of the study. The DMAIC method would be useful in improving the efficiency of other large-scale multinational quality improvement projects.

Objectives: Research indicates that the increasing population of over 25 million people in the United States who have limited English proficiency experience differences in decision-making and subsequent care at end of life in the ICU when compared with the general population. The objective of this study was to assess the perceptions of healthcare team members about the factors that influence discussions and decision-making about end of life for patients and family members with limited English proficiency in the ICU. Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews with ICU physicians, nurses, and interpreters. Setting: Three ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Subjects: Sixteen ICU physicians, 12 ICU nurses, and 12 interpreters. Intervention: None. Measurements and Main Results: We conducted 40 semistructured interviews. We identified six key differences in end-of-life decision-making for patients with limited English proficiency compared with patients without limited English proficiency: 1) clinician communication is modified and less frequent; 2) clinician ability to assess patient and family understanding is impaired; 3) relationship building is impaired; 4) patient and family understanding of decision-making concepts (e.g., palliative care) is impaired; 5) treatment limitations are often perceived to be unacceptable due to faith-based and cultural beliefs; and 6) patient and family decision-making styles are different. Facilitators of high-quality decision-making in patients with limited English proficiency included: 1) premeeting between clinician and interpreter; 2) interpretation that communicates empathy and caring; 3) bidirectional communication of cultural perspectives; 4) interpretation that improves messaging including appropriate word choice; and 5) clinician cultural humility. Conclusions: End-of-life decision-making is significantly different for ICU patients with limited English proficiency. Participants identified several barriers and facilitators to high-quality end-of-life decision-making for ICU patients and families with limited English proficiency. Awareness of these factors can facilitate interventions to improve high-quality, compassionate, and culturally sensitive decision-making for patients and families with limited English proficiency.

ABSTRACTWe describe how our institution responded when an interpreter who participated in the consent process involving an individual with limited English proficiency refused to cosign consent documents attesting that the individual enrolling in the study understood the consent information and that her consent to enroll was voluntary. In developing our approach, our institution took into account ethical tensions between the Belmont principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice that apply to the protection of research participants and the professional principles of beneficence, fidelity, and respect for the importance of culture that are outlined in ethical guidelines for medical interpreters.

Patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) often are subject to antibiotic and diagnostic test overuse. We sought to improve appropriate use of antimicrobials and diagnostic tests for patients with FN. We used a blended quality approach with Lean Six Sigma tools and iterative improvement of a clinical decision aid to guide providers through empirical antimicrobial selection and diagnostic evaluation of patients with FN during a yearlong period. We evaluated the incidence of nonadherence to best practice before, during, and after rollout of a clinical decision aid in conjunction with an educational initiative. At baseline, 71% of patients with FN had at least one critical deviation from best practice. During the project, the percentage decreased to 27.3%; 4 months after the project was completed, the percentage was 33.3% ( P = .04). A clinical decision aid can improve adherence to best practices for the empirical management of FN.

Abstract Background Little is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S. Methods In two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering. Results Sixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site. Conclusion The frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. Implications for Practice The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.