Breslin, Maggie

Abstract Objective This QI project aimed to enhance pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff’s ability to recognize and compassionately respond to caregiver fatigue (CF), tailoring interventions to the specific needs identified. Methods An interdisciplinary team of healthcare professionals developed and implemented a comprehensive strategy to improve the recognition and management of CF. This QI project included creating educational materials for staff, enhancing unit resources, and introducing targeted interventions. Data collection involved pre- and post-project surveys. Results The program led to significant improvements in PICU staff’s confidence in recognizing and responding to CF, increased availability of unit resources, enhanced staff compassion, and reduced callousness toward others. Conclusions This QI project emphasized the role that structured initiatives and interdisciplinary collaboration can play in addressing CF within the PICU setting. Improvements in staff confidence, compassion, and reduced burnout demonstrate the program’s effectiveness. These findings underscore the value of targeted interventions and provide a valuable framework for further research and can serve as a model for other healthcare units seeking to integrate CF management into comprehensive patient care.

This article reports on a study to assess the feasibility of research procedures and acceptability of QBSAFE, a set of conversation cards focused on quality of life, treatment burden, safety, and avoidance of future events in people with type 2 diabetes. The study enrolled 84 patients and 7 clinicians. Of the 58 patients who completed questionnaires, 64% agreed that the QBSAFE agenda-setting kit (ASK) helped them discuss their situation, 78% agreed that others could benefit from it, and 38% said they would use it again. Most clinicians felt confident responding to issues (in 89% of encounters) and said they would use the kit again (78%) and recommend it to colleagues (82%). The QBSAFE ASK can be feasibly implemented and holds promise in facilitating discussion and collaborative problem-solving.

Objectives: Patient involvement in the choice of whether to undergo emergency department observation unit (EDOU) admission and cardiac stress testing or follow-up with a physician could increase knowledge, increase satisfaction, and safely decrease resource use. We test this hypothesis in a randomized trial. Methods: We developed and tested Chest Pain Choice, a decision aid that communicates the pre-test probability of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 45 days and makes management options (EDOU admission and stress testing or 24-72 hr follow-up with a physician) explicit to the patient. Patients with a primary complaint of chest pain and no known coronary artery disease who were being considered for EDOU admission were eligible. Patient-clinician pairs were randomized to intervention (decision aid plus risk estimate) or usual care (no decision aid, no risk estimate). We used patient surveys and 30-day phone follow-up to assess the primary outcome (patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS), patient satisfaction, safety (delayed or missed ACS defined as acute myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac/unknown death), and resource use. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: The 205 patients had the following characteristics: mean age (SD) 54.7 (11.8), 59% female, 36% history of HTN and 10% history of diabetes. Compared with usual care patients (n=104), patients receiving the decision aid (n=101) less frequently decided to be admitted to the EDOU for cardiac stress testing (58% vs 77%, absolute difference = 19%, 95% CI 6, 31), had a lower rate of stress testing (74% vs 90%, absolute difference = 16%, 95% CI 6, 26), greater knowledge of their exact pre-test probability of ACS (25% vs 1%, absolute difference = 24%, 95% CI 15, 33) and reported greater satisfaction with the decision-making process (strongly agree: 61% vs 40%, absolute difference = 21%, 95% CI 7, 33). There were no cases of delayed or missed ACS in either arm. Conclusion: Use of a decision aid in ED chest pain patients increased knowledge, increased satisfaction, and safely decreased resource use. In an era of health care reform, shared decision-making is a promising approach that may both increase patient engagement and decrease resource use.Funding(This research has received full or partial funding support from the American Heart Association, National Center)

Abstract Purpose: Diabetes care has largely focused on reducing the risk of complications by achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets; yet, whole-person care may be more effective and desirable. We sought to determine the nature of discussions about quality of life, burden of treatment, hypoglycemia, sexual function, and social support during diabetes-focused clinical encounters.Methods: We analyzed 41 previously recorded clinical encounters with patients with type 2 diabetes from the control arms of practice-based trials of shared decision making. Two coders evaluated videos for discussions about aspects of life with diabetes: quality of life, burden of treatment, hypoglycemia, sexual function, and social supports. When an aspect was raised, coders evaluated the nature of the conversation, clinician responses, and time spent on discussing the aspect. Results: Median length of the encounter was 15 minutes, 6 seconds (IQR: 11:16 – 20:23 minutes). Thirty five of 41 encounters (85.4%), included some discussion of quality of life (58.5%), burden of treatment (51.2%), social support (2.4%), or hypoglycemia (9.8%). Sexual function was not discussed. On average, 4.5% (1.4%-5.5%) of the encounter time involved conversations about HbA1c whereas 15.0% (0%-25%) of the encounter was spent on some aspect of quality of life, burden of treatment, social support, or hypoglycemia. If a topic related to quality of life was raised, clinicians most often responded by acknowledging patient’s concern without providing a solution (45.8%). Conclusions: A significant part of the patient-clinician encounter involves discussion of quality of life and burden of treatment, but clinicians rarely address these issues by providing solutions.

AbstractShared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to selecting medical tests and treatments for many situations. The goal of SDM is to ensure that patients are well informed, are meaningfully involved in decisions, and receive treatments that meet their goals and preferences. There is considerable evidence about the tools used to promote SDM, called patient decision aids, and many different measures have been developed to assess the impact of SDM. However, fairly little is known about the applicability of the tools and measures in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article builds on insights from two keynote lectures presented at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussing the state of the science for measurement of SDM and the design of patient decision aids to promote SDM conversations and highlights some key areas for further research to advance SDM in the ED.

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.