Dataset Information

Assessing Complex Emergency Management with Clinical Case-Vignettes: A Validation Study.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate whether responses to dynamic case-vignettes accurately reflect actual practices in complex emergency situations. We hypothesized that when obstetricians were faced with vignette of emergency situation identical to one they previously managed, they would report the management strategy they actually used. On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that their response to a vignette based on a source case managed by another obstetrician would be the same as the actual management.A multicenter vignette-based study was used in 7 French maternity units. We chose the example of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) to study the use of case-vignettes for assessing the management of complex situations. We developed dynamic case-vignettes describing incidents of PPH in several steps, using documentation in patient files. Vignettes described the postpartum course and included multiple-choice questions detailing proposed clinical care. Each participating obstetrician was asked to evaluate 4 case-vignettes: 2 directly derived from cases they previously managed and 2 derived from other obstetricians' cases. We compared the final treatment decision in vignette responses to those documented in the source-case by the overall agreement and the Kappa coefficient, both for the cases the obstetricians previously managed and the cases of others.Thirty obstetricians participated. Overall agreement between final treatment decisions in case-vignettes and documented care for cases obstetricians previously managed was 82% (Kappa coefficient: 0.75, 95% CI [0.62-0.88]). Overall agreement between final treatment decisions in case-vignettes and documented care in vignettes derived from other obstetricians' cases was only 48% (Kappa coefficient: 0.30, 95% CI [0.12-0.48]). Final agreement with documented care was significantly better for cases based on their own previous cases than for others (p<0.001).Dynamic case-vignettes accurately reflect actual practices in complex emergency situations. Therefore, they can be used to assess the quality of management in these situations.

SUBMITTER: Rousseau A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4575125 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing Complex Emergency Management with Clinical Case-Vignettes: A Validation Study.

Rousseau Anne A Rozenberg Patrick P Ravaud Philippe P

PloS one 20150918 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate whether responses to dynamic case-vignettes accurately reflect actual practices in complex emergency situations. We hypothesized that when obstetricians were faced with vignette of emergency situation identical to one they previously managed, they would report the management strategy they actually used. On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that their response to a vignette based on a source case managed by another obstetrician would be the same as the ac ...[more]

PMID: 26383261

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe burden on healthcare systems is mounting continuously owing to population growth and aging, overuse of medical services, and the recent COVID-19 pandemic. This overload is also causing reduced healthcare quality and outcomes. One solution gaining momentum is the integration of intelligent self-assessment tools, known as symptom-checkers, into healthcare-providers' systems. To the best of our knowledge, no study so far has investigated the data-gathering capabilities of these tools, which represent a crucial resource for simulating doctors' skills in medical-interviews.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the data-gathering function of currently available chatbot symptom-checkers.MethodsWe evaluated 8 symptom-checkers using 28 clinical vignettes from the repository of MSD-Manual case studies. The mean number of predefined pertinent findings for each case was 31.8 ± 6.8. The vignettes were entered into the platforms by 3 medical students who simulated the role of the patient. For each conversation, we obtained the number of pertinent findings retrieved and the number of questions asked. We then calculated the recall-rates (pertinent-findings retrieved out of all predefined pertinent-findings), and efficiency-rates (pertinent-findings retrieved out of the number of questions asked) of data-gathering, and compared them between the platforms.ResultsThe overall recall rate for all symptom-checkers was 0.32(2,280/7,112;95 %CI 0.31-0.33) for all pertinent findings, 0.37(1,110/2,992;95 %CI 0.35-0.39) for present findings, and 0.28(1140/4120;95 %CI 0.26-0.29) for absent findings. Among the symptom-checkers, Kahun platform had the highest recall rate with 0.51(450/889;95 %CI 0.47-0.54). Out of 4,877 questions asked overall, 2,280 findings were gathered, yielding an efficiency rate of 0.46(95 %CI 0.45-0.48) across all platforms. Kahun was the most efficient tool 0.74 (95 %CI 0.70-0.77) without a statistically significant difference from Your.MD 0.69(95 %CI 0.65-0.73).ConclusionThe data-gathering performance of currently available symptom checkers is questionable. From among the tools available, Kahun demonstrated the best overall performance.

Project description:Introduction/backgroundAdults with chest pain presenting to an emergency department are high-risk and high-volume. A methodology which gathers practicing physicians together to review evidence and share practice experience to formulate a written algorithm with key decision points and measures is discussed with implementation, based on change management principles, and results.MethodsA methodology was followed to "establish the standard-of-care". Literature and data were reviewed, a written consensus algorithm was designed with ability to track adherence and deviations. We performed a before and after analysis of a performance improvement intervention in adult patients with undifferentiated chest pain in our nine-campus hospital system in Florida between January 1st, 2014 and December 31st, 2018.ResultsA total of 200,691 patients were identified as adults with chest pain and the algorithm was used. A dramatic change in the disposition decision rate was noted. When the 'Baseline-Year' was compared with the 'Performance-Year', chest pain patients discharged from the ED increased by 99%, those going to the 'Observation' status decreased by 20%, and inpatient admissions decreased by 63% (p?<?0.0001) All patients were tracked for 30-days for major adverse cardiac event (MACE) or return to the ED within the same system. If the s emergency physicians had not changed their practice/behavior and the Baseline-Year decision rate during the entire Performance-Year was unchanged, then 4563 more patients would have gone to Observation and 7986 patients to Inpatient. The opportunity costs avoided would be approximately $31million (US$.ConclusionsFor successful clinical transformation through change management, we learned: select strategic topics, get active physicians together, write a consensus algorithm with freedom to deviate, identify and remove barriers, communicate vision, pilot with feedback, implement, sustain by "hard wiring" into the electronic medical record and measure outputs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The management of drug safety with the collection of reliable safety data during the conduction of clinical trials conduct is essential for the registry and marketing of products. The systematic evaluation of this process, based on objective measures, requires the application of quality instruments. This study was aimed to design and validate eight instruments through the components of quality (structure, process, and results), for characterizing and assessing the process of drug safety management, during the conduction of clinical trials. METHODS:The eight instruments were designed according to the international recommendations for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and comprise a knowledge survey for professionals at the investigational sites, a satisfaction scale of internal and external clients and a satisfaction survey for patients with the treatment of the adverse events. The instruments also include a checklist to evaluate the safety management infrastructure (human, material and organizational resources) in the sponsoring center, a checklist to evaluate the same criterion at the investigational sites and three checklists that evaluate adherence to regulatory requirements of essential documents (investigator's brochure, protocol, and informed consent form). The content validity was evaluated by Delphi method and the reliability was determined by Cronbach ? test. RESULTS:All the items were valued as very adequate after the second round of the expert panel. The instruments were deemed as appropriate and understandable in the pre-test performed. All responders agreed with the options given and the accessibility of the application. Only 10% of professionals at the research sites suggested that the knowledge survey was too long. Cronbach ? values between .66 and .93 were obtained. CONCLUSION:The structure, process, and outcome framework allowed for the characterization of drug safety management during clinical trials, providing a useful approach for the promoter to systematically measure and evaluate the process. The eight instruments were deemed as reliable, feasible and easy to be used for examining drug safety management while carrying out clinical trials.

Project description:Physicians often select clinical management strategies not strongly supported by evidence or guidelines. Our objective was to examine the likelihood of selecting, and rationale for pursuing, clinical management strategies with more or less guideline support among physicians using clinical vignettes of eight common medical admissions.We conducted a cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes of attending physicians and housestaff at one internal medicine program in New York City. Each clinical vignette included a brief clinical scenario and a varying number of clinical management strategies: diagnostic tests, consultations, and treatments, some of which had strong evidence or guideline support (Level 1 strategies) while others had limited evidence or guideline support (Level 3 strategies). Likelihood of selecting a given management strategy was assessed using Likert scales and multiple response options were used to indicate rationale(s) for selections.Our sample included 79 physicians; 68 (86%) were younger than 40 years of age, 34 (43%) were female. There were 31 attending physicians (39%) and 48 housestaff (61%) and 39 (49%) had or planned to have primarily primary care internal medicine clinical responsibilities. Overall, physicians were more likely to select Level 1 strategies "always" or "most of the time" when compared with Level 3 strategies (82% vs. 43%; p?<?0.001), with wide variation across the eight medical admissions. There were no differences between attending and housestaff physician likelihood of selecting Level 3 strategies (47% vs. 45%, p?=?0.36). Supportive evidence and local practice patterns were the two most common rationales behind selections; supportive evidence was cited as the most common rationale for selecting Level 1 when compared with Level 3 strategies (63% versus 30%; p?<?0.001), whereas ruling out other severe conditions was cited most often for Level 3 strategies.For eight common medical admissions, physicians selected more than 80% of management strategies with strong evidence or guideline support, but also selected more than 40% of strategies for which there was limited evidence or guideline support. The promotion of evidence-based care, including the avoidance of care that is not strongly supported by evidence or guidelines, may require better evidence dissemination and educational outreach to physicians.

Project description:Purpose of studyIdentifying emergency department (ED) patients who are at high risk for return visits is an important goal for case management to improve patient care. This quality improvement study describes the development and evaluation of the Emergency Department Case Management Priority Score (EDCMPS), an electronic medical record (EMR)-based "case-finding" system, and its ability to identify these high-risk patients. In addition, the authors present data about its acceptability among emergency department case managers (ED CMs).Primary practice settingsEmergency departments with case management availability and staffing.Methodology and sampleA retrospective analysis at Duke University Hospital ED compared patient data pre- and postimplementation of the EDCMPS. The tool was developed using the LEAN and Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodologies, with ED CM participation. ED return and hospitalization rates within 7 and 30 days between both methods were compared, and a survey evaluated CM satisfaction with the EDCMPS.ResultsThe 2-month preintervention period (July 1, 2022, to August 31, 2022) included 8,677 patients discharged from the ED, with 897 patients (10.3%) identified as at high risk for return based on the previous manual methodology. In the 3-month postintervention period (September 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022), there were 13,566 patients discharged, with 692 patients (5.1%) identified as at high risk for return using the EDCMPS. The EDCMPS outperformed the manual method, yielding a significantly higher odds ratio (OR) for 7- and 30-day ED return or hospitalization (e.g., 30-day any return OR = 4.21 vs. 1.69). The survey showed broad ED CM agreement on the tool's superior performance, especially in organizing outpatient resources and referring to support programs. However, challenges in securing primary care follow-up, housing, and health insurance applications were identified. The tool's collaborative development approach ensured its fit to ED CM needs, contributing to its success.Implications for case management practiceThe EDCMPS showcases promise in enhancing ED CM efficiency, with strong frontline staff endorsement. It pinpoints areas needing focus for patient support and has the potential to reduce ED revisits and therefore health care utilization. Its methodology offers insights for similar future implementations in health care institutions.

Dataset Information

Assessing Complex Emergency Management with Clinical Case-Vignettes: A Validation Study.

Publications

Assessing Complex Emergency Management with Clinical Case-Vignettes: A Validation Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets