Barwise, Amelia

Abstract Background: Individuals from diverse racial/ethnic and disadvantaged backgrounds are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, compounding the difficulty of adequately understanding, addressing, and reversing health inequities. Social determinants of health (SDOH) factors likely contribute to disparities in cancer trial enrollment. While the presence of SDOH has shown to be associated with clinical trial participation, few studies have explored the role of SDOH in shaping beliefs around the benefits of clinical trials. Thus, this study aims to identify SDOH factors associated with beliefs around the benefits of clinical trial participation. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of data from the Community Health Assets and Resilience Measures survey. The survey was administered in Fall 2021 to community members (N=3593; 98% > 50 years of age, 68% male, 52% racial/ethnic minority) residing in three states within the Mayo Clinic catchment area. Survey items assessed SDOH factors including financial instability, childcare, transportation, food insecurity, safety, literacy, social isolation, and perceived discrimination. Participant beliefs around the benefits of clinical trial participation was measured by rating level of agreement to 4 statements: ‘People in my community can benefit from participating in clinical trials’, ‘Participation in clinical trials benefits society’, ‘Participation in clinical trials is risky’, ‘I would personally benefit’, and ‘People in my community would benefit’. Response options were dichotomized as ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ and adjusted stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with beliefs about clinical trials. Results: Race/ethnicity was significantly associated with all beliefs with Indigenous populations being significantly more likely to agree that people in their community could benefit from clinical trials, clinical trials benefit society, participation in clinical trials is risky, and that they would personally benefit. In adjusted analyses, financial instability, food insecurity, transportation, childcare, safety, social isolation, literacy, and discrimination were significantly associated with beliefs about the benefits of clinical trial participation. Neighborhood safety was most strongly associated with the belief that ‘People in my community can benefit from participating in clinical trials’ and ‘I would personally benefit from clinical trials’. Health literacy was most strongly associated with the belief that clinical trials benefit society and the community. Finally, the experience of 'people act as if they think you are not smart' (discrimination) was most strongly associated with the belief that clinical trials are risky. Conclusion: Clinical trials are the cornerstone to advancing equitable cancer care. Innovative, multifaceted, community-driven strategies are needed that address negative beliefs around the benefits of clinical trial participation to address existing recruitment and retention shortcomings. Citation Format: Jessica D. Austin, Todd Huschka, Amelia Barwise, Megan Allyse, Sean Phelan. The role of social determinants of health on beliefs around the benefits of clinical trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A077.

In this qualitative study, we explored perspectives of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and their families on the Get to Know Me board (GTKMB). Of the 46 patients approached, 38 consented to participate. Of the 66 family members approached, 60 consented to participate. Most patients (26, 89%) and family members (52, 99%) expressed that GTKMB was important in recognizing patient's humanity. Most patients (20, 68%) and families (39, 74%) said that it helped to build a better relationship with the provider team. 60% of patients and families commented that the GTKMB was used as a platform by providers to interact with them. Up to 45 (85%) of the family members supported specific contents of the GTKMB. In structured interviews (11 patients, 7 family members), participants additionally commented on ways providers used the GTKMB to communicate, support patient's personhood, and on caveats in interacting with GTKMB. Critically ill patients and families found the GTKMB helpful in preserving personhood of patient, fostering communication, and building relationships with clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR). DESIGN: Single center randomized crossover study. SETTING: Quaternary care academic hospital. SUBJECTS: Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers. INTERVENTIONS: AMP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments—the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7–10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (–6.11; 95% CI, –7.91 to –4.30 min and –5.38; 95% CI, –7.56 to –3.20 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, –0.09 to 1.54 min; p = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, –32.7 to –12.4 points; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36–1.30; p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians’ performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.

Background Diagnostic error (DE) is a common problem in clinical practice, particularly in the emergency department (ED) setting. Among ED patients presenting with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, a delay in diagnosis or failure to hospitalise may be most impactful in terms of adverse outcomes. Minorities and other vulnerable populations may be at higher risk of DE. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting the frequency and causes of DE in under-resourced patients presenting to the ED with cardiovascular or cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms. Methods We searched EBM Reviews, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science from 2000 through 14 August 2022. Data were abstracted by two independent reviewers using a standardised form. The risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results Of the 7342 studies screened, we included 20 studies evaluating 7436,737 patients. Most studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was multicountry. 11 studies evaluated DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, 8 studies with cardiovascular symptoms and 1 study examined both types of symptoms. 13 studies investigated missed diagnoses and 7 studies explored delayed diagnoses. There was significant clinical and methodological variability, including heterogeneity of DE definitions and predictor variable definitions as well as methods of DE assessment, study design and reporting. Among the studies evaluating cardiovascular symptoms, black race was significantly associated with higher odds of DE in 4/6 studies evaluating missed acute myocardial infarction (AMI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis compared with white race (OR from 1.18 (1.12–1.24) to 4.5 (1.8–11.8)). The association between other analysed factors (ethnicity, insurance and limited English proficiency) and DE in this domain varied from study to study and was inconclusive. Among the studies evaluating DE in patients with cerebrovascular/neurological symptoms, no consistent association was found indicating higher or lower odds of DE. Although some studies showed significant differences, these were not consistently in the same direction. The overall ROB was low for most included studies; however, the certainty of evidence was very low, mostly due to serious inconsistency in definitions and measurement approaches across studies. Conclusions This systematic review demonstrated consistent increased odds of missed AMI/ACS diagnosis among black patients presenting to the ED compared with white patients in most studies. No consistent associations between demographic groups and DE related to cerebrovascular/neurological diagnoses were identified. More standardised approaches to study design, measurement of DE and outcomes assessment are needed to understand this problem among vulnerable populations. Trial registration number The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178885 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178885.

Abstract Objectives Intensive care unit (ICU) direct care nurses spend 22% of their shift completing tasks within the electronic health record (EHR). Miscommunications and inefficiencies occur, particularly during patient hand-off, placing patient safety at risk. Redesigning how direct care nurses visualize and interact with patient information during hand-off is one opportunity to improve EHR use. A web-based survey was deployed to better understand the information and visualization needs at patient hand-off to inform redesign. Methods A multicenter anonymous web-based survey of direct care ICU nurses was conducted (9–12/2021). Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders informed survey development. The primary outcome was identifying primary EHR data needs at patient hand-off for inclusion in future EHR visualization and interface development. Secondary outcomes included current use of the EHR at patient hand-off, EHR satisfaction, and visualization preferences. Frequencies, means, and medians were calculated for each data item then ranked in descending order to generate proportional quarters using SAS v9.4. Results In total, 107 direct care ICU nurses completed the survey. The majority (46%, n = 49/107) use the EHR at patient hand-off to verify exchanged verbal information. Sixty-four percent (n = 68/107) indicated that current EHR visualization was insufficient. At the start of an ICU shift, primary EHR data needs included hemodynamics (mean 4.89 ± 0.37, 98%, n = 105), continuous IV medications (4.55 ± 0.73, 93%, n = 99), laboratory results (4.60 ± 0.56, 96%, n = 103), mechanical circulatory support devices (4.62 ± 0.72, 90%, n = 97), code status (4.40 ± 0.85, 59%, n = 108), and ventilation status (4.35 + 0.79, 51%, n = 108). Secondary outcomes included mean EHR satisfaction of 65 (0–100 scale, standard deviation = ± 21) and preferred future EHR user-interfaces to be organized by organ system (53%, n = 57/107) and visualized by tasks/schedule (61%, n = 65/107). Conclusion We identified information and visualization needs of direct care ICU nurses. The study findings could serve as a baseline toward redesigning an EHR interface.