Dataset Information

Prioritization of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A qualitative exploration of patients' perspectives.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritizing certain surgical patients became inevitable due to limited surgical capacity. This study aims to identify which factors patients value in priority setting, and to evaluate their perspective on a decision model for surgical prioritization.

Methods

We enacted a qualitative exploratory study and conducted semi-structured interviews with N = 15 patients. Vignettes were used as guidance. The interviews were transcribed and iteratively analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

We unraveled three themes: 1) general attitude towards surgical prioritization: patients showed understanding for the difficult decisions to be made, but demanded greater transparency and objectivity; 2) patient-related factors that some participants considered should, or should not, influence the prioritization: age, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, behavior, waiting time, impact on survival and quality of life, emotional consequences, and resource usage; and 3) patients' perspective on a decision model: usage of such a model for prioritization decisions is favorable if the model is simple, uses trustworthy data, and its output is supervised by physicians. The model could also be used as a communication tool to explain prioritization dilemmas to patients.

Conclusion

Support for the various factors and use of a decision model varied among patients. Therefore, it seems unrealistic to immediately incorporate these factors in decision models. Instead, this study calls for more research to identify feasible avenues and seek consensus.

SUBMITTER: van Alphen AMIA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10631689 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prioritization of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A qualitative exploration of patients' perspectives.

van Alphen Anouk M I A AMIA Sülz Sandra S Lingsma Hester F HF Baatenburg de Jong Robert J RJ

PloS one 20231108 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>During the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritizing certain surgical patients became inevitable due to limited surgical capacity. This study aims to identify which factors patients value in priority setting, and to evaluate their perspective on a decision model for surgical prioritization.<h4>Methods</h4>We enacted a qualitative exploratory study and conducted semi-structured interviews with N = 15 patients. Vignettes were used as guidance. The interviews were transcribed and iterati ...[more]

PMID: 37939138

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAs COVID-19 vaccine distribution continues, policy makers are struggling to decide which groups should be prioritized for vaccination.ObjectiveTo assess US adults' preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccine prioritization.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study involved 2 independent, online surveys of US adults aged 18 years and older, 1 conducted by Gallup from September 14 to 27, 2020, and the other conducted by the COVID Collaborative from September 19 to 25, 2020. Samples were weighted to reflect sociodemographic characteristics of the US population.ExposuresRespondents were asked to prioritize groups for COVID-19 vaccine and to rank their prioritization considerations.Main outcomes and measuresThe study assessed prioritization preferences and agreement with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's Preliminary Framework for Equitable Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine.ResultsA total of 4735 individuals participated, 2730 (1474 men [54.1%]; mean [SD] age, 59.2 [14.5] years) in the Gallup survey and 2005 (944 men [47.1%]; 203 participants [21.5%] aged 55-59 years) in the COVID Collaborative survey. In both the Gallup COVID-19 Panel and COVID Collaborative surveys, respondents listed health care workers (Gallup, 93.6% [95% CI, 91.2%-95.3%]; COVID Collaborative, 80.0% [95% CI, 78.0%-81.9%]) and adults of any age with serious comorbid conditions (Gallup, 78.6% [95% CI, 75.2%-81.7%]; COVID Collaborative, 72.9% [95% CI, 70.7%-74.9%]) among their 4 highest priority groups. Respondents of all political affiliations agreed with prioritizing Black, Hispanic, Native American, and other communities that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 (Gallup, 74.2% [95% CI, 70.6%-77.5%]; COVID Collaborative, 84.9% [95% CI, 83.1%-86.5%]), and COVID Collaborative respondents were willing to be preceded in line by teachers and childcare workers (92.5%; 95% CI, 91.2%-93.7%) and grocery workers (85.9%; 95% CI, 84.2%-87.5%). Older respondents in both surveys were significantly less likely than younger respondents to prioritize healthy adults aged 65 years and older among their 4 highest priority groups (Gallup, 23.7% vs 39.1% [χ2 = 2160.8; P < .001]; COVID Collaborative, 23.3% vs 28.8% [χ2 = 5.0198; P = .03]). COVID Collaborative respondents believed the 4 most important considerations for prioritization were preventing COVID-19 spread (78.4% [95% CI, 76.3%-80.3%]), preventing the most deaths (72.1% [95% CI, 69.9%-74.2%]), preventing long-term complications (68.9% [66.6%-71.9%]), and protecting frontline workers (63.8% [95% CI, 61.5%-66.1%]).Conclusions and relevanceUS adults broadly agreed with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's prioritization framework. Respondents endorsed prioritizing racial/ethnic communities that are disproportionately affected by COVID-19, and older respondents were significantly less likely than younger respondents to endorse prioritizing healthy people older than 65 years. This provides reason for caution about COVID-19 vaccine distribution plans that prioritize healthy adults older than a cutoff age without including those younger than that age with preexisting conditions, that aim solely to prevent the most deaths, or that give no priority to frontline workers or disproportionately affected communities.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic posed several challenges for surgical training, including the suspension of many in-person teaching sessions in lieu of webinars. As restrictions have eased, both prepandemic and postpandemic training methods should be used.ObjectiveThis study investigates trainees' experiences of webinars during the COVID-19 pandemic to develop recommendations for their effective integration into surgical training going forward.MethodsThis project was led by the Association of Surgeons in Training and used an iterative process with mixed qualitative methods to consolidate arguments for and against webinars, and the drivers and barriers to their effective delivery, into recommendations. This involved 3 phases: (1) a web-based survey, (2) focus group interviews, and (3) a consensus session using a nominal group technique.ResultsTrainees (N=281) from across specialties and grades confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in webinars for surgical training. While there were concerns, particularly around the utility for practical training (80.9%), the majority agreed that webinars had a role in training following the COVID-19 pandemic (90.2%). The cited benefits included improved access or flexibility and potential standardization of training. The majority of limitations were technical. These perspectives were refined through focus group interviews (n=18) into 25 recommendations, 23 of which were ratified at a consensus meeting, which was held at the Association of Surgeons in Training 2021 conference.ConclusionsWebinars have a role in surgical training following the COVID-19 pandemic. The 23 recommendations encompass indications and technical considerations but also discuss important knowledge gaps. They should serve as an initial framework for ensuring that webinars add value and continue to evolve as a tool for training.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200055325; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=142802.

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach.ResultsInterviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team.ConclusionsPatient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to quantitatively assess stress, anxiety and obsessive thinking related to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and qualitatively appraise perceptions in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe used mixed-methods design in patients referred for CR in 2 centres which delivered uninterrupted service during COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Obsession with COVID-19 Scale (OCS), COVID-19 Stress Scale (CSS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and in-person interviews (combination of a priori questions and probing) were used to evaluate patient experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.ResultsIn total, 109 patients (mean age 59 ± 10, 20% women) were included in quantitative part and in 30 of them we conducted the in-person interviews. About a quarter of patients met HADS threshold for anxiety and depression while CAS and OCS results demonstrated extremely low possibility of coronavirus related dysfunctional thinking (3%) and anxiety (2%). The CSS indicated the most prevalent concerns were related to COVID-19 vaccines safety (60%) and fear of getting infected (60%). During interviews, patients perceived the CR as well as health care providers as safe, trustworthy and with enough support to avoid or manage COVID-19 related health risks.ConclusionsOverall, patients reported AMI affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 related stress and anxiety were relatively low and mostly related to general views of infectious disease. CR was perceived safe and trustworthy in terms of primary disease and COVID-19.Lay summaryThis mixed-method study included 109 patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 and focused on their experience and perceptions with COVID-19 and the healthcare services during pandemic.-Patients reported acute myocardial infarction affected their lives more than the COVID-19 pandemic.-The COVID-19 related concerns were mostly related to general views of infectious disease (vaccine safety, fear of getting infected) whilst cardiac rehabilitation was perceived safe and trustworthy environment during COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic transformed healthcare services in ways that have impacted individual physical and psychological health. The substantial health challenges routinely faced by dialysis-dependent patients with advanced kidney disease have increased considerably during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic but remain inadequately investigated. We therefore decided to analyze and compare the perspectives of dialysis patients on their own needs and challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic with those of their professional healthcare providers through interviews with both groups.MethodsQualitative study of seven in-center hemodialysis patients, seven peritoneal dialysis patients, seven dialysis nurses, and seven physicians at the Medical University of Vienna between March 2020 and February 2021, involving content analysis of semi-structured interviews supported by a natural language processing technique.ResultsAmong the main themes emerging from interviews with patients were: (1) concerns about being a 'high-risk patient'; (2) little fear of COVID-19 as a patient on hemodialysis; (3) questions about home dialysis as a better choice than in-center dialysis. Among the main themes brought up by physicians and nurses were: (1) anxiety, sadness, and loneliness of peritoneal dialysis patients; (2) negative impact of changes in clinical routine on patients' well-being; (3) telehealth as a new modality of care.ConclusionPreventive measures against COVID-19 (e.g., use of facemasks, distancing, isolation), the introduction of telemedicine, and an increase in home dialysis have led to communication barriers and reduced face-to-face and direct physical contact between healthcare providers and patients. Physicians did not perceive the full extent of patients' psychological burdens. Selection/modification of dialysis modality should include analysis of the patient's support network and proactive discussion between dialysis patients and their healthcare providers about implications of the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic. Modification of clinical routine care to increase frequency of psychological evaluation should be considered in anticipation of future surges of COVID-19 or currently unforeseen pandemics.

Dataset Information

Prioritization of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A qualitative exploration of patients' perspectives.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Prioritization of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A qualitative exploration of patients' perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets