Search

Objective Older adults are prone to unplanned emergency department (ED) return visits (URVs). Knowledge about patient perspectives on the preventability and reasons for these URVs is limited and lacks a representable ED study population. This study aims to determine the proportion of URVs and to explore the preventability and underlying causes as perceived by a wide range of older adults and their caregivers.Design A multicentre mixed-methods study.Setting The ED of one academic and one regional hospital in the Netherlands.Participants Patients aged ≥70 years with a URV within 30 days after the index ED visit, consecutively sampled during a 6-week period.Outcome measurements Quantitative data regarding patient and clinical characteristics and perceived preventability of a URV were prospectively collected and analysed using descriptive statistics. Underlying causes of a URV were collected by semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts.Results Out of 1291 patients of 70 years and older, 151 patients had a URV (11.7%). In total, 64 patients were included after informed consent (42.4%). A total of 33 patients (51.5%) found their URV preventable. Perceived causes for a URV were categorised in six themes: (1) suboptimal treatment of health complaints, (2) premature hospital discharge, (3) poor assessment and arrangement of postdischarge needs, (4) patient and caregiver behaviour, (5) lack of advance care planning and insight in treatment options and (6) deficits in general practitioner care.Conclusions Our high rate of preventable URVs (51.5%) perceived by patients and caregivers underscores the importance to reduce URVs among older adults. Perceived causes in this study add other unexplored themes to the existing knowledge and create support for further research and interventional opportunities.

Abstract Background Older adults are too often hospitalized from the emergency department (ED) without needing hospital care. Knowledge about rates and causes of these preventable emergency admissions (PEAs) is limited. This study aimed to assess the proportion of PEAs, the level of agreement on perceived preventability between physicians and patients, and to explore their underlying causes as perceived by patients, their relatives, and the admitting physician. Methods A multi-center multi-method study at the ED of one academic and two regional hospitals in the Netherlands was performed. All patients aged > 70 years and hospitalized from the ED were consecutively sampled during a six-week period. Quantitative data regarding patient and clinical characteristics and perceived preventability of the admission were prospectively collected from the electronical medical record and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Agreement on preventability between patient, caregivers and physicians was assessed by using the Cohen’s kappa. Underlying causes of a PEA were subsequently collected by semi-structured interviews with patients and caregivers. Physician’s perceived causes of a PEA were collected by telephone interviews and by open-ended questions sent by email. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts and email narratives. Results Out of 773 admissions, 56 (7.2%) were deemed preventable by patients or their caregivers. Admitting physicians regarded 75 (9.7%) admissions as preventable. The level of agreement between these two groups was low with a Cohen’s kappa score of 0.10 (p = 0.003). Perceived causes for PEAs related to six themes: (1) insufficient support at home, (2) suboptimal care in the community setting, (3) errors in hospital care, (4) time of presentation to ED and availability of resources, (5) delayed help seeking behavior, and (6) errors made by patients. Conclusions Our findings contribute to the existing evidence that a substantial part (almost one out of ten) of the older adults visiting the ED is perceived as unnecessary hospital care by patients, caregivers and health care providers. Findings also provide valuable insight into the causes for PEAs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to understand why the perspectives of those responsible for hospital admission and those being admitted vary considerably.

Abstract Background The number and efficacy of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is debatable. This study aimed to select a consensus-based core set of indicators for effective quality improvement in the ICU. Methods A Delphi study with a panel of intensivists, ICU nurses, and former ICU patients or relatives (n = 34) from general, teaching, and academic hospitals. Panelists completed a questionnaire in which they scored 69 preselected quality indicators on relevance using a nine-point Likert scale. Indicators were categorized using the rated relevance score into: ‘accepted, ‘equivocal’ and ‘excluded’. Questionnaire results were discussed in focus groups to reach consensus on the final set. Results Response rates for the questionnaire and focus groups were 100 and 68%, respectively. Consensus was reached on a final set of 17 quality indicators including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs). Other quality indicators relate to the organization and outcome of ICU care, including safety culture, ICU standardized mortality ratio, and the process indicator ‘learning from and improving after serious incidents’. Conclusions ICU clinicians and former patients and relatives developed a consensus-based core set of ICU quality indicators that is relatively short but comprehensive and particularly tailored to end-users needs.

Abstract Introduction The optimal treatment plan for patients with cancer is discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Effective meetings require all participants to have collaboration and communication competences. Participating residents (defined as qualified doctors in training to become a specialist) are expected to develop these competences by observing their supervisors. However, the current generation of medical specialists is not trained to work in multidisciplinary teams; currently, training mainly focuses on medical competences. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators among residents with respect to learning how to participate competently in MDTMs, and to identify additional training needs regarding their future role in MDTMs, as perceived by residents and specialists. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch residents and medical specialists participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants’ demographic and professional characteristics (e.g. sex, specialty, training duration, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis. Results Nineteen residents and 16 specialists were interviewed. Three themes emerged: 1) awareness of the educational function of MDTMs among specialists and residents; 2) characteristics of MDTMs (e.g. time constraints, MDTM regulations) and 3) team dynamics and behaviour. Learning to participate in MDTMs is facilitated by: specialists and residents acknowledging the educational function of MDTMs beyond their medical content, and supervisors fulfilling their teaching role and setting conditions that enable residents to take a participative role (e.g. being well prepared, sitting in the inner circle, having assigned responsibilities). Barriers to residents’ MDTM participation were insufficient guidance by their supervisors, time constraints, regulations hindering their active participation, a hierarchical structure of relations, unfamiliarity with the team and personal characteristics of residents (e.g. lack of confidence and shyness). Interviewees indicated a need for additional training (e.g. simulations) for residents, especially to enhance behavioural and communication skills. Conclusion Current practice with regard to preparing residents for their future role in MDTMs is hampered by a variety of factors. Most importantly, more awareness of the educational purposes of MDTMs among both residents and medical specialists would allow residents to participate in and learn from oncological MDTMs. Future studies should focus on collaboration competences.

IntroductionNowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants’ characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed.ResultsThirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice.ConclusionTo make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Background Optimal oncological care nowadays requires discussing every patient in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). The number of patients to be discussed is rising rapidly due to the increasing incidence and prevalence of cancer and the emergence of new multidisciplinary treatment options. This puts MDTMs under considerable time pressure. The aim of this study is therefore to identify the facilitators and barriers with regard to performing an efficient, competent and high-quality MDTM.Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with Dutch medical specialists and residents participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants’ professional and demographic characteristics (eg, sex, medical specialist vs resident, specialty, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis.Results Sixteen medical specialists and 19 residents were interviewed. All interviewees agreed that attending and preparing MDTMs is time-consuming and indicated the need for optimal execution in order to ensure that MDTMs remain feasible in the near future. Four themes emerged that are relevant to achieving an optimal MDTM: (1) organisational aspects; (2) participants’ responsibilities and requirements; (3) competences, behaviour and team dynamics and (4) meeting content. Good organisation, a sound structure and functioning information and communication technology facilitate high-quality MDTMs. Multidisciplinary collaboration and adequate communication are essential competences for participants; a lack thereof and the existence of a hierarchy are hindering factors.Conclusion Conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological MDTM is facilitated and hindered by many factors. Being aware of these factors provides opportunities for optimising MDTMs, which are under pressure due to the increase in the number of patients to discuss.

Objective Suboptimal transitional care (ie, needs assessment and coordination of follow-up care) in the emergency department (ED) is an important cause of ED revisits and hospital admissions and may potentially harm patients, especially frail older adults. We aimed to systematically review the effect of ED-based interventions by health professionals who are dedicated to providing transitional care to older adults.Design Systematic review.Measurements We searched five biomedical databases for published (quasi)experimental studies evaluating the effects of health professionals in the ED dedicated to providing transitional care to older ED patients on clinical, process and/or service use outcomes. Reviewers screened studies for relevance and assessed methodological quality with published criteria (Robins-1 and the Cochrane risk of bias tool). Data were synthesised around study and intervention characteristics and outcomes of interest.Results From the 6561 references initially extracted from the databases, 12 studies were eligible for inclusion. Two types of interventions were identified, namely, individual needs assessment of ED patients (8 studies; 75%) and discharge planning and coordination of services (4 studies; 25%). Structured individual needs assessment was associated with a significant decrease in hospital admissions, hospital readmissions and ED revisits. Individualised discharge plans from the ED were associated with a significant decrease in ED revisits and hospital readmission. The overall methodological quality of the included studies was relatively low.Conclusions Comprehensive assessment of patient needs and ED discharge planning and coordination of services by health professionals interested in transitional care can help optimise the transition of care for older ED patients and reduce the risk of costly and potentially harmful (re)admissions for this population. However, more robust research is needed on the effectiveness of these interventions aiming to improve clinical, process and service use outcomes.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021237345.