Citations 2
Adapting Conceptual Frameworks for Patient Engagement in Emergency Department Research
Carden, Donna L., Booker‐Vaughns, Juanita , Dunn, Patrick , Kizzie-Gillett, Constance L., Vaughan, William P., Weingarten, Gail, Williams, Pluscedia, Young‐Brinn, Angela, Grudzen, Corita R. , Wright, Rebecca , Hess, Erik P.
Academic Emergency Medicine | August 16, 2016 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1332-1336
AbstractFor many people the emergency department (ED) is the first point of access to healthcare for acute needs and a recurring location for many with chronic healthcare needs. While the ED is well placed to identify unmet needs it can also be a net that people slip through when faced with uncoordinated and expensive healthcare challenges. Thus the ED has a responsibility to set patients on a safe and meaningful care trajectory, which can only be done in consultation and partnership with the patients themselves. The purpose of this article is to present crucial aspects of patient engagement that are essential for future research to foster an environment of colearning and respect that encourages ongoing involvement by patients, families, and staff.
The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, “Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy‐relevant Patient‐centered Research Agenda” Diagnostic Testing Breakout Session Report
Barrett, Tyler W. , Bellolio, Fernanda , Hall, M. Kennedy , Brody, Aaron , Dodd, Kenneth W. , Grieser, Mira, Self, Wesley H. , Weingarten, Gail, Bellolio, M Fernanda, Rising, Kristin L. , Levy, Phillip David , Raja, Ali S , Hess, Erik P. , Hollander, Judd E. , Bellolio, M Fernanda
Academic Emergency Medicine | July 12, 2016 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1354-1361
Abstract Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department ( ED ). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude “worst‐case” diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease‐related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM . Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM , 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.