Search

Objectives: Abbreviations are often used in medicine yet may be a source of confusion for patients and their families. We aimed to determine the general public's understanding of commonly used medical acronyms., Methods: For this cross-sectional study, we surveyed state fair visitors regarding their understanding of 5 common medical acronyms. An electronic survey was administered to a volunteer sample of adults who spoke and read English and who had never trained to work in medicine or nursing. Free-text responses were coded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect by 2 independent researchers, adding a third researcher if consensus was not reached. Analysis methods included descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression models., Results: We recruited 204 volunteers (55% female; mean age 43 years; 67% had a bachelor's degree or higher). ED (emergency department) was correctly defined by 32%, PCP (primary care provider/physician) by 18%, CBC (complete blood count) by 14%, and PRN (as needed) and NPO (nothing by mouth) by 13% each. Female gender was associated with higher odds of correctly understanding NPO (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-8.21; P = .02); older age was associated with higher odds of understanding PRN (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.05; P = .04). Education level was not found to correlate significantly with successful explanation of any tested acronym., Conclusions: Medical acronyms are a predictable source of miscommunication. In this large cross-sectional study, none of the acronyms evaluated was understood correctly by more than one-third of adults. Clinicians should avoid using acronyms with patients and families to minimize confusion., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

While it has been shown that healthcare providers often use medical jargon, less is known about how patients prefer their clinicians communicate. This mixed-methods study aimed to better understand the general public's preference in healthcare communication. A volunteer cohort of 205 adult attendees at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair was presented a survey with two scenarios at a doctor's office sharing the same information: one using medical terminology and one using simpler, jargon-free language. Survey participants were asked which doctor they preferred, to describe each doctor, and to explain why they believe that doctors may use medical terminology. Common descriptive themes for the jargon-using doctor included that this doctor caused confusion, was too technical, and was uncaring, while the doctor who spoke without jargon was perceived as a good communicator, caring/empathetic, and approachable. Respondents perceived a range of reasons why doctors use jargon, from not recognizing they are using words that are not understood to trying to make themselves feel more important. Overall, 91% of survey respondents preferred the doctor who communicated without medical jargon., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: Physicians regularly use jargon in patient communication, which can lead to confusion and misunderstanding., Objective: To assess the general public's understanding of names and roles of medical specialties and job seniority titles., Designs: Volunteer participants completed an electronic survey, filling-in-the-blanks for 14 medical specialties (e.g., "pediatricians are doctors who take care of _____"), and ranked physician titles in order of experience (medical student, intern, senior resident, fellow, attending)., Setting: The 2021 Minnesota State Fair., Participants: Volunteers >18 years old without medical or nursing training., Main Outcome and Measures: We summarized responses with descriptive statistics. Two researchers coded open-ended answers as correct, partially correct, or incorrect, with a third researcher for coding discrepancies., Results: Two hundred and four participants completed the survey (55% female; mean age 43; 67% of respondents with a bachelor's degree or higher). Of 14 medical specialties listed on the survey, respondents most accurately identified dermatologists (94%) and cardiologists (93%). Six specialties were understood by less than half of the respondents: neonatologists (48%), pulmonologists (43%), hospitalists (31%), intensivists (29%), internists (21%), and nephrologists (20%). Twelve percent of participants correctly identified medical roles in rank order. Most participants (74%) correctly identified medical students as the least experienced. Senior residents were most often identified as the most experienced (44%), with just 27% of respondents correctly placing the attending there. We conclude that medical professionals should recognize that titles are a common source of misunderstanding among the general public and should describe their role when introducing themselves to minimize confusion., (© 2022 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Importance: Despite acknowledging that medical jargon should be avoided, health care practitioners frequently use it when communicating with patients., Objective: To characterize the understanding of common medical jargon terms by surveying a cross section of the general public and studying phrases that have established meanings in regular usage but different meanings in a medical context (eg, negative and positive test results)., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, participants indicated their understanding of phrases that may have different meanings in medicine than in colloquial English via a mix of short answer and multiple choice questions. Several questions included paired phrases to assess for differences in understanding with or without jargon. Volunteers were recruited at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair near St Paul, Minnesota. An electronic survey was given to a volunteer sample of 215 adults (>18 years) who did not work or train to work in the medical field and spoke and read English., Exposures: Completing a written or verbal survey., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was an accurate understanding of the medical terminology. Free-text responses were coded by 2 researchers for comprehension. Secondary outcomes looked for associations between volunteer demographics and understanding., Results: The 215 respondents (135 [63%] female; mean [SD] age, 42 [17] years) demonstrated a varied ability to interpret medical jargon phrases. For example, most participants (207 [96%]) knew that negative cancer screening results meant they did not have cancer, but fewer participants (143 [79%]) knew that the phrase "your tumor is progressing" was bad news, or that positive lymph nodes meant the cancer had spread (170 [67%]). While most (171 [80%]) recognized that an unremarkable chest radiography was good news, only 44 participants (21%) correctly understood that a clinician saying their radiography was impressive was generally bad news. In each of the paired phrases comparing jargon vs nonjargon approaches, the nonjargon phrase was understood significantly better (P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that several common phrases are misunderstood when used in a medical setting, with the interpreted meaning frequently the exact opposite of what is intended.

Introduction: Lumbar puncture (LP) for the collection of cerebrospinal fluid is an important diagnostic tool for the evaluation of febrile or ill-appearing infants. This invasive procedure is painful for patients; inadequate analgesia may have lasting effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends analgesia during all LP procedures, and oral sucrose alone does not offer sufficient analgesia. Our objective was to identify analgesic use trends during infant LP in our emergency department and create a system of analgesic administration. We aimed for complete compliance with one method of analgesia and an increase in our use of 2 or more methods to 85% over 12 months., Methods: We utilized Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle methodology and retrospective chart review. Five interventions focused on staff communication, collaboration, and education. Inclusion criteria: infants <60 days who underwent LP procedure due to fever >38°C, hypothermia <36.5°C of unknown origin, or ill-appearance., Results: One hundred infant LPs analyzed: 52 preintervention and 48 intervention. The use of one analgesic increased from 98% preintervention to 100%. The use of 2 or more analgesics increased from 58% preintervention to 87%. Topical lidocaine use increased from 56% preintervention to 73%. LP success rates were high in both groups, with no statistically significant change in the success rate., Conclusion: We created a streamlined process to ensure all infants undergoing lumbar puncture received at least 1 analgesic and increased the proportion of infants treated with 2 or more analgesics. This work could be expanded to improve analgesia during other invasive procedures in the emergency department., (Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: Direct hospital admission of children without evaluation in the emergency department (ED) is common, but few guidelines exist to maximize safety by assessing patient stability. This report describes a novel approach to support patient safety., Methods: An interdisciplinary children's hospital team developed a brief ED-based evaluation process called the ED Rapid Assessment of Patients Intended for Inpatient Disposition (ED RAPID). It entails a brief evaluation of vital signs and clinical stability by the ED attending physician and nurse. Children deemed stable are admitted to inpatient wards, whereas those requiring immediate intervention undergo full ED evaluation and disposition. We assessed outcomes for all children evaluated through this process from March 2013 through February 2015., Results: During the study period, we identified 715 patients undergoing ED RAPID evaluation. Of these, we directly admitted 691 (96.4%) to the hospital ward after ED RAPID evaluation; median ED treatment time was 4.0 minutes. We transitioned 24 (3.4%) to full ED evaluation, 14 (2.0%) because a ward bed was unavailable, and 10 (1.4%) for clinical reasons identified in the evaluation. We admitted four of the 10 stopped (40% of stops, 0.6% of total) to an intensive care unit, and 6 (60% of stops, 0.8% of total) to the hospital ward after ED care. Eight children (1.1%) admitted to the hospital ward after ED RAPID evaluation required a transfer to an intensive care unit within 12 hours., Conclusion: The ED RAPID evaluation process for children directly admitted to the hospital was feasible and effective in this setting., (Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: Ondansetron has been shown to decrease admission rate and the need for intravenous fluids among pediatric emergency department (ED) patients with acute gastroenteritis, but there is limited evidence regarding its use after ED discharge. This study describes prescribing patterns for ondansetron and assesses the effects of ondansetron home prescription on rate of return., Methods: Data were gathered from the electronic health record on 2 separate but overlapping groups of patients seen in a pediatric ED from 2012 to 2014. The Gastroenteritis Group included all patients with a discharge diagnosis of gastroenteritis by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code. The All Ondansetron Group included any child prescribed ondansetron at discharge. Patterns of ondansetron use and 3- and 7-day ED return rate were assessed for both groups. Discharge diagnosis was evaluated for the All Ondansetron Group., Results: A total of 996 patients with acute gastroenteritis were identified during the study period. Of these, 76% received ondansetron in the ED, and 71% were discharged with prescriptions for ondansetron. Seven-day ED return rates were similar between groups (6% with prescription, 5% without, P = 0.66). A total of 2287 patients received home prescriptions for ondansetron. Fifty-four percent of these patients' discharge diagnoses were classed as gastrointestinal complaints, 14% other infectious conditions, 9% respiratory, and 4% injuries. Their return rate was 6%. There was wide variation in the number of doses prescribed., Conclusions: Home-use ondansetron is widely prescribed in this urban academic pediatric ED for a variety of indications, without effect on 3- or 7-day ED return. Further prospective studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of this practice.

Background: Children presenting to pediatric emergency departments (EDs) are frequently given enemas for relief of constipation symptoms; there is very little literature guiding solution selection., Objective: Our aim was to assess and compare the efficacy of the various enema solutions used in a pediatric ED, including the "pink lady," a previously unreported compounded combination of docusate, magnesium citrate, mineral oil, and sodium phosphate., Methods: We identified all children who received any enema over a 5-year period in an urban, quaternary care pediatric ED for inclusion in the study via electronic record review. Physician investigators retrospectively reviewed routine visit documentation to confirm the type and dosage of enema and assess comorbidities, indications, efficacy, and side effects. Subjective descriptions of output were classified as none, small, medium, or large by reviewer consensus., Results: There were 768 records included. Median age was 6.2 years (interquartile range 3.3-10.3 years). Solutions used were sodium phosphate (n = 396), pink lady (n = 198), soap suds (n = 160), and other (n = 14). There was no significant difference in output by solution type (p = 0.88). Volume delivered was highest for pink lady, with no significant association between volume delivered and output (p = 0.48). Four percent of patients had side effects. Soap suds had a significantly higher rate of side effects (10.6%; p = 0.0003), primarily abdominal pain., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in reported stool output produced by sodium phosphate, soap suds, and pink lady enemas in children treated in an ED. Further study via randomized controlled trials would be beneficial in guiding selection of enema solution., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Optimizing information sharing at transfer of care between teams is an important target for the improvement of patient safety. Traditional emergency department (ED)-to-floor handoffs do not support a shared mental model between physicians, residents, and nurses. This report describes and evaluates acceptance of a novel process for coordinating physician and nursing handoff calls for patients being admitted to an inpatient floor from a children's hospital ED., Methods: The Admission Conference Call (ACC) is a single conference call including attendings, residents, and nurses from the ED and inpatient teams, currently used for 29.8% of admissions from one ED. Physicians and nurses were surveyed to assess perception of its effects on patient care., Results: A total of 653 ACCs were conducted during 2017. The survey was completed by 43 nurses and 89 physicians. Mean Likert scale findings were in favor of the process supporting safe patient care (4.5/5; standard deviation [SD], 0.6); none said it increased risk. Ratings favored the process improving interdisciplinary alignment (4.0/5; SD, 0.8) and the benefits outweighing the inconvenience (3.9/5; SD, 0.9). Respondents were neutral on the effect of the ACC on throughput time (3.0/5; SD, 1.0). Logistical concerns were expressed; mean satisfaction was 6.8/10 (SD, 2.1). Free text comments varied widely, from pride to frustration., Conclusion: The Admission Conference Call is a well-accepted alternative to a traditional multiple call process. Most participants believe it supports safe patient care. Further research is necessary to confirm measurable effects on patient outcomes, but this project provides encouragement to institutions considering innovative approaches., (Copyright © 2019 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines recommend oral rehydration therapy (ORT) and avoidance of laboratory tests and intravenous fluids for mild to moderate dehydration in children with gastroenteritis; oral ondansetron has been shown to be an effective adjunct., Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine if a triage-based, nurse-initiated protocol for early provision of ondansetron and ORT could safely improve the care of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients with symptoms of gastroenteritis., Methods: This study evaluated a protocol prompting triage nurses to assess dehydration in gastroenteritis patients and initiate ondansetron and ORT if indicated. Otherwise well patients aged 6 months to 5 years with symptoms of gastroenteritis were eligible. Prospective postintervention data were compared with retrospective, preintervention control subjects., Results: One hundred twenty-eight (81 postintervention and 47 preintervention) patients were analyzed; average age was 2.1 years. Ondansetron use increased from 36% to 75% (P < 0.001). Time to ondansetron decreased from 60 minutes to 30 minutes (P = 0.004). Documented ORT increased from 51% to 100% (P < 0.001). Blood testing decreased from 37% to 21% (P = 0.007); intravenous fluid decreased from 23% to 9% (P = 0.03). Fifty-two percent of postintervention patients were discharged with prescriptions for ondansetron. There were no significant changes in ED length of stay, admissions, or unscheduled return to care., Conclusions: A triage nurse-initiated protocol for early use of oral ondansetron and ORT in children with evidence of gastroenteritis is associated with increased and earlier use of ondansetron and ORT and decreased use of IV fluids and blood testing without lengthening ED stays or increasing rates of admission or unscheduled return to care.

Objectives: Computed tomography (CT) has been widely used in the evaluation of children with suspected appendicitis, but concerns about ionizing radiation have increased interest in ultrasound for these patients. We sought to assess the effectiveness of an appendicitis electronic clinical decision support (E-CDS) system in increasing ultrasound and decreasing CT use in children evaluated in emergency departments (EDs) for suspected appendicitis., Methods: This was a preintervention and postintervention analysis of an E-CDS implemented into an electronic health record system shared by an academic, tertiary-care children's hospital and a community hospital. The tool consisted of a structured order set with embedded clinical advice and a link to a Web site. Emergency department patients aged 3 to 18 years with suspected appendicitis were reviewed retrospectively. Imaging use was assessed 3 months before and 6 months after implementation of the intervention., Results: Three hundred twenty-seven patients were identified, 211 at postintervention; 80% were seen in the community ED. Among community ED patients with imaging, ultrasound use increased (36%-51%, P = 0.049), and CT scan use decreased (81%-66%, P = 0.044) in the postintervention period, with no change in complications or safety outcomes. No difference was found in ultrasound rate (100%-97%, P = 1.000) or CT scan rate (13%-10%, P = 1.000) among children's ED patients with imaging., Conclusions: An E-CDS can effectively decrease CT scanning and increase use of ultrasound in children with suspected appendicitis in a community hospital ED. Electronic clinical decision support may be an effective method of disseminating pediatric best practices from a children's hospital to affiliated community EDs.

Background: Children who present to emergency departments (EDs) for care are frequently advised to follow up with their primary care providers (PCPs) after discharge; little is known about whether PCPs agree that follow-up advised by EDs is appropriate for their patients., Objectives: The aims of this study were to determine PCP preferences for follow-up recommendations given to their pediatric patients at the time of ED visits and to compare these preferences to reported emergency medicine provider (EMP) practice., Methods: This was an online survey of PCPs and EMPs in a regional health system assessing preferred timing for ED follow-up recommendations for 15 common pediatric conditions and whether the follow-up should be definite or contingent., Results: Ninety PCPs and 36 EMPs responded to the survey. In patients with community-acquired pneumonia, probability of recommending follow-up after 5 or more days was 33% in PCPs and 8% in EMPs (P = 0.001). In all conditions with significant differences, PCPs favored longer follow-up. In upper respiratory tract infection and acute otitis media, PCPs had a higher probability than EMPs of selecting as-needed versus definite follow-up (P = 0.0002 and P = 0.01, respectively). In asthma, concussion, and pneumonia, PCPs had a significantly lower probability of selecting as-needed follow-up than EMPs., Conclusions: In this regional survey, PCPs preferred longer times between ED visit and follow-up than EMPs for a number of conditions. Differences were also found in preference for as-needed or definite follow-up, varying by condition. These discrepancies could result in overuse or underuse of clinic resources, suggesting a possible quality improvement target for emergency medicine practice.

Background: Thousands of children and adolescents attend high-intensity athletic camps each year; the rate and type of injuries sustained are unknown., Hypothesis: Participants in a high-intensity athletic camp would have significant, identifiable health care needs associated with injuries and illnesses., Study Design: Retrospective, observational study., Methods: Acute medical care for camp participants was primarily provided in an academic medical center emergency department (ED). All participants treated in the ED or by a volunteer camp physician were included in the study. Medical and camp records for camp participants were reviewed and described., Results: In sum, 263 participants attended the high-intensity wrestling camp in 2009. Seventy-eight (30%) were treated in the ED; median age was 15.8 years. Sixteen were seen more than once, totaling 96 visits. Thirty-four percent of visits included x-ray and 25% laboratory studies. Forty-four percent were skin complaints. One patient had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection; none had positive viral skin cultures. Musculoskeletal or facial trauma occurred in 37%, with 5 fractures. Injury rate was 1.9 per 1000 athlete exposures. Overall, 47% of campers sought medical care during camp; 11 (4.2%) left camp early because of illness or injury. Few wrestlers received follow-up care., Conclusions: Illnesses and injuries requiring medical attention were common in this high-intensity sports camp. While many ED patients could have been treated in a clinic, 50% required ED medical resources for diagnosis or care.

Health care delivery systems are widely studying and implementing physician pay for performance (P4P) initiatives to improve quality and control costs. However, the increasing focus on quality-driven financial incentives has some troubling implications for medical professionalism. This article examines the P4P concept in light of a notion of medical fiduciary professionalism that dates back to the 18th-century Scottish physician John Gregory. Gregory's principles serve as a framework to assess the appropriateness of P4P initiatives in disseminating the principles of high-quality care without damage to professionalism, the patient-physician relationship, and access to care for all patients.

This study addresses the infrapopulation sizes of 2 larval trematode species Himasthla quissetensis and Zoogonus rubellus as they co-occur within their estuarine snail host Ilyanassa obsoleta. Rediae of H. quissetensis and sporocysts of Z rubellus were counted in snails singly infected with each parasite and in snails infected with both. Comparisons of the counts indicate that infrapopulations of H. quissetensis were unaffected by co-occurrence with Z rubellus. However, Z. rubellus infrapopulations were reduced when co-occurring with H. quissetensis. It is proposed that this situation does not result from an interspecific interaction between parasite species. Although this double infection is relatively frequent in certain snail populations, it is contended that these trematode species do not co-occur often enough to evolve responses to one another. However, the host environment must be encountered in each life cycle, and both trematode species must be adapted to use it. On this basis, whatever happens when these 2 species occupy the same host is based on adaptations of the parasites to the host. It is proposed that these parasites are adapted to self-limit their infrapopulations in the snail host. They can, thus, preserve and use the host for many years and thereby enhance total cercarial transmission (fitness). Infrapopulation sizes would be determined by host resource levels, which, among other factors, would be influenced by the presence of multiple parasite species. In single infections, by far the most common situation, host resource levels would be set by the nutritional status or age (size) of the host (or both). The reduced infrapopulation sizes of Z rubellus on co-occurrence suggest that this trematode is more sensitive to host resource levels than is H. quissetensis.