Search

Aims: To elicit experiences of patients, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals in intermediate care units (IMCUs) in an academic medical centre in Baltimore, MD related to the challenges and intricacies of multimorbidity management to inform development of a multimorbidity symptom management toolkit. Design: Experience‐based co‐design. Methods: Between July and October 2021, patients aged 55 years and older with multimorbidity admitted to IMCUs at an academic medical centre in Baltimore, Maryland, USA were recruited and interviewed in person. Interdisciplinary healthcare professionals working in the IMCU were interviewed virtually. Participants were asked questions about their role in recognizing and treating symptoms, factors affecting the quality of life, symptom burden and trajectory over time, and strategies that have and have not worked for managing symptoms. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used for analysis. Results: Twenty‐three interviews were conducted: 9 patients, 2 family caregivers, and 12 healthcare professionals. Patients' mean age was 67.5 (±6.5) years, over half (n = 5) were Black or Hispanic, and the average number of comorbidities was 3.67. Five major themes that affect symptom management emerged: (1) the patient–provider relationship; (2) open and honest communication; (3) accessibility of resources during hospitalization and at discharge; (4) caregiver support, training, and education; and (5) care coordination and follow‐up care. Conclusion: Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different priorities for multimorbidity management. It is imperative to identify shared priorities and target holistic interventions that consider patient and caregiver experiences to improve outcomes. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care and Impact: This paper addresses the paucity of research related to the shared experience of disease trajectory and symptom management for people living with multimorbidity. We found that patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals often have similar goals but different care and communication priorities. Understanding differing priorities will help better design interventions to support symptom management so people with multimorbidity can have the best possible quality of life. Reporting Method: We have adhered to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) guidelines in our reporting. Patient or Public Contribution: This study has been designed and implemented with patient and public involvement throughout the process, including community advisory board engagement in the project proposal phase and interview guide development, and member checking in the data collection and analysis phases. The method we chose, experience‐based co‐design, emphasizes the importance of engaging members of a community to act as experts in their own life challenges. In the coming phases of the study, the public will be involved in developing and testing a new intervention, informed by these qualitative interviews and co‐design events, to support symptom management for people with multimorbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forty-five years ago, the first author of this paper surveyed the US medical schools to determine their offerings on EOL (End-of-Life) issues. The results showed limited exposure for medical school students to learn about dying and death, thus their "learning" was apparently on-the-job training. The EOL offerings were so limited that the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), following the 1975 publication from the survey, contacted the first author to inquire about death and dying in the curricula of their medical schools. Apparently, it was so insignificant that the AAMC did not have such information. Palliative medicine, geriatric medicine, and hospice were then in the "birthing" process, a mere blur on the horizon. Today, as in 1975, it is likely that most medical students have personally had minimal experience with death and that for many entering students, other than on television, the cadaver is their first sight of a dead person. The objective of this research is a longitudinal study at five-year intervals since 1975 reporting on EOL education in US medical schools. The total number of medical schools has increased from 113 in 1975 to 150 in 2020. The current study surveyed medical schools electronically and via postal services with a response rate of 37%. Findings from the survey over time revealed significant inclusion of death and dying and palliative medicine as well as geriatrics and hospice. Gross anatomy has evolved from strictly hands-on to integrating 3D/virtual models, a change not without controversy. A noticeable difference in emphasis is obvious as care now plays a more significant role in medical training than previously, thus making modern medicine not only about cure, but more about care than was previously emphasized. Communication with dying patients and families, analgesics for chronic pain, and advance directives all are covered in over 90% of schools today. The current emphasis on EOL care, not just disease management, is increasing and puts more of a human face on modern medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study examines the intricate language and communication patterns of nurse‐to‐nurse handoffs across three units with varying patient acuity levels and nurse–patient ratios, seeking to identify linguistic factors that may affect the quality of information transfer and patient outcomes. Design: A mixed‐methods cross‐sectional design. Methods: This study used the Nurse‐to‐Nurse Transition of Care Communication Model to explore the content and meaning of language in nursing handoffs within a large academic medical centre. Data were collected on three units through digital audio recordings of 20 handoffs between June and September 2022, which were transcribed and analysed using the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count programme. Trustworthiness was established by adhering to COREQ and STROBE guidelines for qualitative and quantitative research, respectively. Results: Analysis revealed a preference for casual, narrative language across all units, with ICU nurses demonstrating a higher confidence and leadership in communication. Cognitive processes such as insight and causation were found to be underrepresented, indicating a potential area for miscommunication. Communication motives driven by affiliation were more pronounced in ICU settings, suggesting a strong collaborative nature. No significant differences were observed among the units post multiple testing adjustments. Speech dysfluencies were most pronounced in ICU handoffs, reflecting possible stress and cognitive overload. Conclusion: The study highlights the need for improved communication strategies such as interventions to enhance language clarity and incorporating technological tools into handoff processes to mitigate potential miscommunications and errors. The findings advance nursing science by highlighting the critical role of nuanced language in varied‐acuity hospital settings and the necessity for structured nurse education in handoff communication and standardized handoff procedures. Implications for the profession and patient care: This study underscores the critical role of language in nurse‐to‐nurse handoffs. It calls for enhanced communication strategies, technology integration and training to reduce medical errors, improving patient outcomes in high‐acuity hospital settings. Patient or Public Contribution: Nurses only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this literature review was to identify interventions designed to improve healthcare team communication in the United States. We conducted a review of peer-reviewed, English-language articles describing interventions aimed at improving healthcare team communication. We analyzed articles that met pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and characterized who is testing communication interventions, the rationale for testing, and ways of measuring effectiveness. We descriptively categorized the strength and types of study findings. Thirty articles were retained in our analysis. Most assessments were conducted by academic medical centers, the Veterans Health Administration, and teaching hospitals. Interventions sought to improve teamwork, patient safety, clinical outcomes, costs of care, and enhance provider job satisfaction and well-being. Intervention strategies included didactic lectures, simulation, Crew Resource Management, quality improvement, or a combination of these approaches. The vast majority employed a pre-post survey design and measured outcomes using participant feedback. Many assessments failed to utilize a social science theory or communication-specific measures. Interventions with the best training content were conducted at academic medical centers, used a pre-post design, and utilized statistical analysis to analyze results. While interventions for improving healthcare team communication are diverse and have uneven effectiveness, early markers of success merit continued development and assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

University faculty are considered trusted sources of information to disseminate accurate information to the public that abortion is a common, safe and necessary medical health care service. However, misinformation persists about abortion's alleged dangers, commonality, and medical necessity. Systematic review of popular media articles related to abortion, gun control (an equally controversial topic), and cigarette use (a more neutral topic) published in top U.S. newspapers between January 2015 and July 2020 using bivariate analysis and logistic regression to compare disclosure of university affiliation among experts in each topic area. We included 41 abortion, 102 gun control, and 130 smoking articles, which consisted of 304 distinct media mentions of university-affiliated faculty. Articles with smoking and gun control faculty experts had statistically more affiliations mentioned (90%, n = 195 and 88%, n = 159, respectively) than abortion faculty experts (77%, n = 54) (p = 0.02). The probability of faculty disclosing university affiliation was similar between smoking and gun control (p = 0.73), but between smoking and abortion was significantly less (Ave Marginal Effects – 0.13, p = 0.02). Fewer faculty members disclose their university affiliation in top U.S. newspapers when discussing abortion. Lack of academic disclosure may paradoxically make these faculty appear less 'legitimate.' This leads to misinformation, branding abortion as a 'choice,' suggesting it is an unessential medical service. With the recent U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and subsequent banning of abortion in many U.S. states, faculty will probably be even less likely to disclose their university affiliation in the media than in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]