Dataset Information

Implementing an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to intensive care: Results of feasibility testing in three NHS hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale, aims, and objectives

Decisions about whether to refer or admit a patient to an intensive care unit (ICU) are clinically, organizationally, and ethically challenging. Many explicit and implicit factors influence these decisions, and there is substantial variability in how they are made, leading to concerns about access to appropriate treatment for critically ill patients. There is currently no guidance to support doctors making these decisions. We developed an intervention with the aim of supporting doctors to make more transparent, consistent, patient-centred, and ethically justified decisions. This paper reports on the implementation of the intervention at three NHS hospitals in England and evaluates its feasibility in terms of usage, acceptability, and perceived impact on decision making.

Methods

A mixed method study including quantitative assessment of usage and qualitative interviews.

Results

There was moderate uptake of the framework (28.2% of referrals to ICU across all sites during the 3-month study period). Organizational structure and culture affected implementation. Concerns about increased workload in the context of limited resources were obstacles to its use. Doctors who used it reported a positive impact on decision making, with better articulation and communication of reasons for decisions, and greater attention to patient wishes. The intervention made explicit the uncertainty inherent in these decisions, and this was sometimes challenging. The patient and family information leaflets were not used.

Conclusions

While it is feasible to implement an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to ICU, embedding the intervention into existing organizational culture and practice would likely increase adoption. The doctor-facing elements of the intervention were generally acceptable and were perceived as making ICU decision making more transparent and patient-centred. While there remained difficulties in articulating the clinical reasoning behind some decisions, the intervention offers an important step towards establishing a more clinically and ethically sound approach to ICU admission.

SUBMITTER: Rees S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7003751 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementing an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to intensive care: Results of feasibility testing in three NHS hospitals.

Rees Sophie S Bassford Christopher C Dale Jeremy J Fritz Zoe Z Griffiths Frances F Parsons Helen H Perkins Gavin D GD Slowther Anne Marie AM

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 20190517 1

<h4>Rationale, aims, and objectives</h4>Decisions about whether to refer or admit a patient to an intensive care unit (ICU) are clinically, organizationally, and ethically challenging. Many explicit and implicit factors influence these decisions, and there is substantial variability in how they are made, leading to concerns about access to appropriate treatment for critically ill patients. There is currently no guidance to support doctors making these decisions. We developed an intervention with ...[more]

PMID: 31099118

Similar Datasets

Project description:The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundMinistries of health in low- and middle-income countries often lack timely quality data for data-driven decision making in healthcare networks. We describe the design and implementation of decision-support electronic tools by the Ministry of Health of the State of Chiapas, in Mexico, as part of Salud Mesoamerica Initiative.MethodsThree electronic decision-support tools were designed through an iterative process focused on streamlined implementation: 1) to collect and report health facility data at health facilities; 2) to compile and analyze data at health district and central level; and, 3) to support stratified sampling of health facilities. Data was collected for five composite indicators measuring availability of equipment, medicines, and supplies for maternal and child health. Quality Assurance Teams collected data, evaluated results and supported quality improvement. Data was also analyzed at the central level and health districts for decision-making.ResultsData from 300 health facilities in four health districts was collected and analyzed (November 2014-June 2015). The first wave revealed gaps on availability of equipment and supplies in more than half of health facilities. Electronic tools provided the ministry of health officers new ways to visualize data, identify patterns and make hypothesis on root-causes. Between the first and second measurement, the number of missing items decreased, and actions performed by quality improvement teams became more proactive. In the final measurement, 89.7-100% of all health facilities achieved all the required items for each indicator.ConclusionsOur experience could help guide others seeking to implement electronic decision-support tools in low- and middle-income countries. Electronic decision-support tools supported data-driven decision-making by identifying gaps on heatmaps and graphs at the health facility, subdistrict, district or state level. Through a rapid improvement process, the Ministry of Health met targets of externally verified indicators. Using available information technology resources facilitated prompt implementation and adoption of technology.

Dataset Information

Implementing an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to intensive care: Results of feasibility testing in three NHS hospitals.

Rationale, aims, and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implementing an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to intensive care: Results of feasibility testing in three NHS hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure