Search

Background We examined whether a context and process-sensitive ‘intelligent' checklist increases compliance with best practice compared with a paper checklist during intensive care ward rounds. Methods We conducted a single-centre prospective before-and-after mixed-method trial in a 35 bed medical and surgical ICU. Daily ICU ward rounds were observed during two periods of 8 weeks. We compared paper checklists (control) with a dynamic (digital) clinical checklist (DCC, intervention). The primary outcome was compliance with best clinical practice, measured as the percentages of checked items and unchecked critical items. Secondary outcomes included ICU stay and the usability of digital checklists. Data are presented as median (interquartile range). Results Clinical characteristics and severity of critical illness were similar during both control and intervention periods of study. A total of 36 clinicians visited 197 patients during 352 ward rounds using the paper checklist, compared with 211 patients during 366 ward rounds using the DCC. Per ICU round, a median of 100% of items (94.4–100.0) were completed by DCC, compared with 75.1% (66.7–86.4) by paper checklist (P=0.03). No critical items remained unchecked by the DCC, compared with 15.4% (8.3–27.3) by the paper checklist (P=0.01). The DCC was associated with reduced ICU stay (1 day [1–3]), compared with the paper checklist (2 days [1–4]; P=0.05). Usability of the DCC was judged by clinicians to require further improvement. Conclusions A digital checklist improved compliance with best clinical practice, compared with a paper checklist, during ward rounds on a mixed ICU. Clinical trial registration NCT 03599856.

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate practice behaviours of Swedish physicians with regard to discussing the impact of cancer treatment on fertility with paediatric oncology patients and their parents, and to identify factors associated with such discussions. Methods A cross‐sectional survey study was conducted targeting all physicians in Sweden working in paediatric oncology care settings. Participants responded to a questionnaire measuring practice behaviour, attitudes, barriers, and confidence in knowledge. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with seldom discussing fertility. Results More than half of the physicians routinely talked with their patients/parents about the treatment's potential impact on fertility (male patients: 62%; female patients: 57%; P = 0.570). Factors associated with less frequently discussing fertility with patients/parents were working at a non‐university hospital (male patients: OR 11.49, CI 1.98–66.67; female patients: OR 33.18, CI 4.06–271.07), concerns that the topic would cause worry (male patients: OR 8.23, CI 1.48–45.89; female patients: OR 12.38, CI 1.90–80.70), and perceiving the parents as anxious (male patients: OR 7.18, CI 1.20–42.85; female patients: OR 11.65, CI 1.32–103.17). Conclusions Based on our findings, we recommend structured training in how to communicate about fertility issues in stressful situations, which in turn might increase fertility‐related discussions in paediatric oncology.

Introduction Patients undergoing selective minor emergency and elective procedures are followed up by a nurse-led structured telephone review six weeks post-operatively in our hospital. Our study objectives were to review patients' satisfaction, assess cost-effectiveness and compare our practice with other surgical units in Northern Ireland (NI). Patients and Methods Completed telephone follow-up forms were reviewed retrospectively for a three-year period and cost savings calculated. Fifty patients were contacted prospectively by telephone using a questionnaire to assess satisfaction of this follow-up. A postal questionnaire was sent to 68 general and vascular surgeons in NI, assessing individual preferences for patient follow-up. Results A total of 1378 patients received a telephone review from September 2005 to September 2008. One thousand one hundred and seventy-seven (85.4%) were successfully contacted, while 201 (14.6%) did not respond despite multiple attempts. One hundred and forty-seven respondents (10.7%) required further outpatient follow-up, thereby saving 1231 outpatient reviews, equivalent to £41,509 per annum. Thirty-nine (78%) patients expected post-operative follow-up, with 29 (58%) expecting this in the outpatient department. However, all patients were satisfied with the nurse-led telephone review. Fifty-three (78%) consultants responded. Those who always, or occasionally, review patients post-operatively varies according to the operation performed, ranging from 2.2% appendicectomy patients to 40.0% for varicose vein surgery. Conclusion Current practice in NI varies, but a significant proportion of patients are not routinely reviewed. This study confirmed that patients expect post-operative follow-up. A nurse-led telephone review service is acceptable to patients, cost-effective and reduces the number of unnecessary outpatient reviews.

Objective Healthcare organizations are increasingly implementing electronic health records (EHRs) and other related health information technology (IT). Even in institutions which have long adopted these computerized systems, employees continue to rely on paper to complete their work. The objective of this study was to explore and understand human-technology integration factors that may be causing employees to rely on paper alternatives to the EHR. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 key-informants in a large Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), with a fully implemented EHR, to understand the use of paper-based alternatives. Participants included clinicians, administrators, and IT specialists across several service areas in the medical center. Results We found 11 distinct categories of paper-based workarounds to the use of the EHR. Paper use related to the following: (1) efficiency; (2) knowledge/skill/ease of use; (3) memory; (4) sensorimotor preferences; (5) awareness; (6) task specificity; (7) task complexity; (8) data organization; (9) longitudinal data processes; (10) trust; and (11) security. We define each of these and provide examples that demonstrate how these categories promoted paper use in spite of a fully implemented EHR. Conclusions In several cases, paper served as an important tool and assisted healthcare employees in their work. In other cases, paper use circumvented the intended EHR design, introduced potential gaps in documentation, and generated possible paths to medical error. We discuss implications of these findings for EHR design and implementation.

Objective: To evaluate the use of neuroimaging in clinical practice and to assess the prevalence of detected structural abnormalities in epilepsy patients in a clinical set up. Methods: 919 outpatients were identified and the scan results reviewed. A total of 677 patients had chronic active epilepsy (88 had idiopathic generalised epilepsy (IGE), 588 had localisation related epilepsy, one had symptomatic generalised epilepsy), 57 had a single epileptic seizure, 46 were in remission, and 139 had non-epileptic attacks. Results: 391 patients had no scan (53 patients in this group had IGE, 182 had localisation related epilepsy, one had generalised symptomatic epilepsy, 18 had single epileptic attacks, 21 were in remission, 116 had non-epileptic attacks). Altogether 528 patients had a scan, the results were not available in 33, 163 had x ray computed tomography (CT) only, 178 had standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (slice thickness 5 mm), and 154 had high resolution MRI (including a T1 weighted sequence with 1.5 mm thick slices). Some 252 of 495 scans (51%) were abnormal. Abnormalities were hippocampal sclerosis (n=128), atrophy or non-specific white matter lesions (n=35), vascular abnormalities (n=27), tumours (n=25), brain damage (n=24), malformations of cortical development (n=13). Excluding atrophy and non-specific white matter lesions the prevalence of detected abnormalities was 54% in localisation related epilepsy, 18% in single seizure patients, 16% in epilepsy in remission, and 0% in IGE and non-epileptic attacks. Conclusions: Abnormalities were detected in more than half of all patients with localisation related epilepsy, and in about one in five patients with single seizures or epilepsy in remission. Many patients had no scan or only CT or standard MRI. The true prevalence of structural abnormalities may be have been higher. Scanning did not add any information in patients with IGE or non-epileptic attacks.

Understanding the impact of health information technology on doctor-patient interaction is vital to designing better electronic health records (EHRs). This article quantitatively examines and compares clinically experienced physicians' interactions with patients using paper or EHRs in ambulatory primary care settings.Clinical encounters using paper or EHRs were recorded with high-resolution video cameras to capture physicians' interactions with the health records and patients. All videos were coded using quantified video coding methodology to understand how physicians interacted with EHRs and patients through measuring eye gaze durations. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the results of the paper and EHR visits.Eight experienced family medicine physicians and 80 patients participated in the study. A total of 80 visits, 40 with paper and 40 with EHRs were recorded. The proportion of time physicians spent gazing at medical records during EHR visits was significantly more than in paper chart visits (35.2 versus 22.1%, P = 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of physician time was spent gazing at the patient when using an EHR compared with when using a paper chart (52.6 versus 45.6%, P = 0.041).For this group of family medicine physicians, more time was spent looking at the EHR screen than paper records and a little less time looking at the patient. These findings may negatively affect the patient perception of the visit with the physician and have implications for the design of future EHRs.

To examine the influence of evidence-based guidance on health care decisions, a study of the use of seven different sources and types of evidence-based guidance was carried out in senior health professionals in England with responsibilities either for directing and purchasing health care based in the health authorities, or providing clinical care to patients in trust hospitals or in primary care.Postal survey.Three health settings: 46 health authorities, 162 acute and/or community trust hospitals, and 96 primary care groups in England.566 subjects (46 directors of public health, 49 directors of purchasing, 375 clinical directors/consultants in hospitals, and 96 lead general practitioners).Knowledge of selected evidence-based guidance, previous use ever, beliefs in quality, usefulness, and perceived influence on practice.A usable response rate of 73% (407/560) was achieved; 82% (334/407) of respondents had consulted at least one source of evidence-based guidance ever in the past. Professionals in the health authorities were much more likely to be aware of the evidence-based guidance and had consulted more sources (mean number of different guidelines consulted 4.3) than either the hospital consultants (mean 1.9) or GPs in primary care (mean 1.8). There was little variation in the belief that the evidence-based guidance was of "good quality", but respondents from the health authorities (87%) were significantly more likely than either hospital consultants (52%) or GPs (57%) to perceive that any of the specified evidence-based guidance had influenced a change of practice. Across all settings, the least used route to accessing evidence-based guidance was the Internet. For several sources an effect was observed between use ever, the health region where the health professional worked, and the region where the guidance was produced or published. This was evident for some national sources as well as in those initiatives produced locally with predominantly local distribution networks.The evidence-based guidance specified was significantly more likely to be seen to have contributed to the decisions of public health specialists and commissioners than those of consultants in hospitals or of GPs in a primary care setting. Appropriate information support and dissemination systems that increase awareness, access, and use of evidence-based guidance at the clinical interface should be developed.

Objectives—To describe the use, perceived eVectiveness, and predicted future use of organisational strategies for influencing clinicians’ behaviour in the approach of NHS trusts to clinical governance, and to ascertain the perceived benefits of clinical governance and the barriers to change. Design and setting—Whole population postal survey conducted between March and June 1999. Subjects—Clinical governance leads of 86 NHS trusts across the South West and West Midlands regions. Method—A combination of open questions to assess the use of strategies to influence clinician behaviour and the barriers to clinical governance. Closed (yes/ no) and Likert type ratings were used to assess the use, perceived eVectiveness, and future use of 13 strategies and the predicted outcomes of clinical governance. Results—All trusts use one or more of 13 strategies categorised as educational, facilitative, performance management, and organisational change methods. Most popular were educational programmes (96%) and protocols and guidelines (97%). The least popular was performance management such as use of financial incentives (29%). Examples of successful existing practice to date showed a preference for initiatives that described the use of protocols and guidelines, and use of benchmarking data. Strategies most frequently rated as eVective were facilitative methods such as the facilitation of best practice in clinical teams (79%), the use of pilot projects (73%), and protocols and guidelines (52%). The least often cited as eVective were educational programmes (42%) and training clinicians in information management (20%); 8% found none of the 13 strategies to be eVective. Predicted future use showed that all the trusts which completed this section intended to use at least one of the 13 strategies. The most popular strategies were educational and facilitative. Scatterplots show that there is a consistent relationship between use and planned future use. This was less apparent for the relationship between planned use and perceived eVectiveness. Barriers to change included lack of resources, mainly of money and staV time, and the need to address cultural issues, plus infrastructure support. The anticipated outcomes of clinical governance show that most trusts expect to influence clinician behaviour by improving patient outcomes (78%), but only 53% expect it to result in better use of resources, improved patient satisfaction (36%), and reduced complaints (10%). Conclusions—Clinical governance leads of trusts report using a range of strategies for influencing clinician behaviour and plan to use a similar range in the future. The choice of methods seems to be related to past experience of local use, despite equivocal judgements of their perceived eVectiveness in the trusts. Most expect to achieve a positive impact on patient outcomes as a result. It is concluded that trusts should establish methods of learning what strategies are eVective from their own data and from external comparison. (Quality in Health Care 2001;10:76‐82)

Advising patients when to drive after surgery is a common practice which gynaecologists need to do on a regular basis as a part of their duty to patients. We carried out a literature search regarding advice given on driving after gynaecological surgical procedures, and found no study or research on this area. We then carried out a questionnaire survey of 99 gynaecologists in Northern Ireland. We have identified wide variation in clinical practice, and advocate a United Kingdom wide survey and further studies to find out optimum time to drive after different gynaecological surgeries. There is a need for national guidelines on driving after surgery, which would be of great benefit to gynaecologists, patients, motor insurers, police and all other interested parties.

Aim To explore the views of consultant ophthalmic surgeons in Wales in the context of planning cataract surgery in patients with amblyopia. To compare prevailing views and preferences with recommendations in published literature. Method A cross-sectional survey was conducted in which all consultant ophthalmologists working in Wales were invited to complete an online survey designed using the Survey Monkey tool (http://www.surveymonkey.com). The survey included a clinical scenario involving an amblyopic patient with bilateral cataracts with questions designed to elicit responders’ preferences with regard to which eye they would operate on first as well as the reasoning behind their clinical decision making. Results 32 out of 42 consultants responded to the survey (a response rate of >75%). With regards to the chronological order of surgery 18 (56.26%) indicated that they would perform cataract surgery first on the non-amblyopic eye, 11 (34.4%) would surgically address the amblyopic eye first and three (9.4%) indicated that patient preference would dictate the choice regarding the laterality of the eye to be operated on first. While 24 responders (75.0%) had encountered amblyopic patients who had developed problems after cataract surgery only 10 (31.3%) opined that formal guidance from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists was warranted. Conclusion These results indicate that awareness of post-cataract surgery diplopia, and in particular fixation switch diplopia, is not widespread amongst consultant ophthalmic surgeons in Wales.

The use of paper-based templates for recording patient information prior to rounds is a common approach to information management. Even with the introduction of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs), residents spend time transferring information to rounding templates. An analysis of rounding templates from 11 Neonatal Intensive Care Units was undertaken in order to characterize the template layouts and information elements associated with rounding in this setting. The template patterns and implications for EMR design are discussed.

Objective: To document and critically analyse the impact of the revised WHO 2000 histological classification for meningiomas on postoperative radiotherapy/radiosurgery indications and MRI follow up protocols. Methods: The current (2000) WHO classification was used to grade 57 meningiomas treated surgically at one institution. These had been reviewed previously in 1999. All German neurosurgical departments carrying out intracranial microsurgery were asked to detail their guidelines for radiation therapy and follow up for meningiomas of different WHO grades. Results: Use of the current criteria downgraded seven of 15 atypical meningiomas (WHO grade II, MII) to grade I (MI), and four of six anaplastic tumours (WHO grade III, MIII) to grade II. Indications for radiotherapy/radiosurgery and MRI follow up protocols varied substantially with the histological grade and between institutions—for example, after an incomplete resection, radiotherapy/radiosurgery recommendations differed between MI and MII in 30 of 58 units (52%), and between MII and MIII in 34 of 56 units (61%). Conclusions: Correlative studies combining treatment and outcome data with a standardised histopathological analysis are warranted to define properly the indications for radiotherapy/radiosurgery and follow up protocols after surgery for meningiomas of different histological grades. The use of changing grading paradigms during recent years renders decision making based on local and published experience difficult. The relatively large number of meningiomas classified as atypical/WHO grade II in current practice would argue against an uncritically aggressive approach to these tumours.

There is currently a political enthusiasm for the development and use of clinical guidelines despite, paradoxically, there being relatively few healthcare issues that have a sound research evidence base. As decisions have to be made even where there is an undetermined evidence base and that limiting recommendations to where evidence exists may reduce the scope of guidelines, thus limiting their value to practitioners, guideline developers have to rely on various different sources of evidence and adapt their methods accordingly. This paper outlines a method for guideline development which incorporates a consensus process devised to tackle the challenges of a variable research evidence base for the development of a national clinical guideline on risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers.To inform the recommendations of the guideline a formal consensus process based on a nominal group technique was used to incorporate three strands of evidence: research, clinical expertise, and patient experience.The recommendations for this guideline were derived directly from the statements agreed in the formal consensus process and from key evidence-based findings from the systematic reviews. The existing format of the statements that participants had rated allowed a straightforward revision to "active" recommendations, thus reducing further risk of subjectivity entering into the process.The method outlined proved to be a practical and systematic way of integrating a number of different evidence sources. The resultant guideline is a mixture of research based and consensus based recommendations. Given the lack of available guidance on how to mix research with expert opinion and patient experiences, the method used for the development of this guideline has been outlined so that other guideline developers may use, adapt, and test it further.