Dataset Information

Clinician perspectives on inpatient cystatin C utilization: A qualitative case study at Mayo Clinic.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Serum creatinine (SCr) testing has been the mainstay of kidney function assessment for decades despite known limitations. Cystatin C (CysC) is an alternative biomarker that is generally less affected than SCr by pertinent non-renal factors in hospitalized patients, such as muscle mass. Despite its potential advantages, the adoption of CysC for inpatient care is not widespread. At one hospital with CysC testing, we demonstrated a significant rise in non-protocolized use over the last decade. This study uses qualitative methods to provide the first report of how clinicians understand, approach, and apply CysC testing in inpatient care.

Methods

Fifteen clinicians from various disciplines were interviewed about their experience with inpatient CysC testing. The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using a phenomenological approach.

Results

Knowledge and confidence with CysC varied greatly. Clinicians reported first learning about the test from colleagues on consulting services or multidisciplinary teams. The majority believed CysC to provide a more accurate measure of kidney function than SCr. Common scenarios for CysC ordering included medication dosing, evaluation of acute kidney injury, and a thorough evaluation of kidney function in patients with risk factors for an altered SCr. Facilitators for ordering CysC included the availability of rapid results turnaround and the automated calculation of glomerular filtration rate based on the biomarker. Barriers to use included a lack of education about CysC, and the absence of an institutional protocol for use.

Discussion

Clinicians at our site decided independent of institutional guidance whether and when CysC added value to patient care. While the majority of study participants indicated advantages to rapid turnaround CysC testing, its use depended not just on the features of the specific case but on clinician familiarity and personal preference. Findings from this research can guide the implementation and expansion of CysC testing.

SUBMITTER: Markos JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7732069 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinician perspectives on inpatient cystatin C utilization: A qualitative case study at Mayo Clinic.

Markos James Roland JR Schaepe Karen S KS Teaford Hilary R HR Rule Andrew D AD Kashani Kianoush B KB Lieske John C JC Barreto Erin F EF

PloS one 20201211 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Serum creatinine (SCr) testing has been the mainstay of kidney function assessment for decades despite known limitations. Cystatin C (CysC) is an alternative biomarker that is generally less affected than SCr by pertinent non-renal factors in hospitalized patients, such as muscle mass. Despite its potential advantages, the adoption of CysC for inpatient care is not widespread. At one hospital with CysC testing, we demonstrated a significant rise in non-protocolized use over ...[more]

PMID: 33306741

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the drivers of distress and motivations faced by interdisciplinary clinicians who were on the frontline caring for patients with COVID-19.Design50 semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.SettingA safety-net hospital in Denver, Colorado.ParticipantsInterdisciplinary frontline clinicians including physicians, advance practice providers, nurses, respiratory therapists and paramedics providing inpatient hospital care to patients hospitalised for COVID-19.ResultsFifty clinicians (32 women and 18 men) participated. Five themes with respective subthemes (in parentheses) were identified: depersonalisation and barriers to care (impeding rapport and compassion, focusing on infection risk at the expense of high-quality care, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation), powerless in uncertainty (inescapable awareness of personal risk, therapeutic doubt in a void of evidence, confronting ethical dilemmas, struggling with dynamic and unfamiliar challenges), overwhelmed and exhausted (burden of personal protective equipment (PPE), information overload and confusion, overstretched by additional responsibilities at work, compounded by personal life stressors, feeling vulnerable and dispensable, compassion fatigue, distress from the disproportionate impact on socially oppressed communities), bolstering morale and confidence (motivated by community and family support, equipped with data), and driven by moral duty (responsibility to patient care and community, collegial solidarity and collaboration, contributing to the greater good).ConclusionFrontline clinicians reported distress due to the challenges of PPE, uncertainty and powerlessness, new responsibilities at work and home, losing control of their schedules, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation and witnessing healthcare disparities exacerbated by this pandemic. Clinicians feel supported by their colleagues, families, and community and were driven by a sense of moral duty. Healthcare system should adopt strategies to minimise distress faced by interdisciplinary clinicians on the frontline of COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundIn the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.Research questionHow do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?Study design and methodsWe conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.ResultsClinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.InterpretationTension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Project description:Background and aimsPatient-centered care (PCC) benefits patients, health-care providers, and health-care systems by providing delivery of care that addresses patient values and needs while improving provider experiences, and by decreasing health-care expenditure. To improve PCC, health-care systems need to measure it. Recently, we developed a PCC framework that is evidence based and patient informed. The purpose of this study was to gather the perspective of clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts regarding the PCC domains included in the framework. Their perspectives were used to refine these domains, which ultimately will inform the development of PCC quality indicators.MethodsParticipants were recruited via expert and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom from October 2017 to January 2018. With the use of an interview guide developed using the PCC framework, interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for a thematic analysis using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes.ResultsSixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, which included four clinician-scientists and 12 quality improvement experts. Twelve of the participants were from Canada, three from the United Kingdom, and one from the United States. From the thematic analysis, three major themes were identified: (a) measurability of PCC, (b) practical considerations for implementing measurement, and (c) policy and practice implications. Participants discussed barriers and recommendations to improve and increase the clarity of the PCC domains in health system reporting, resulting in several future directions to refine and target specific PCC domains.ConclusionClinician-scientists and quality improvement experts provided key recommendations for the measurement of PCC. The perspectives of key stakeholders in PCC measurement will inform strategies for the implementation and uptake of patient-centered quality indicators in health-care systems. The views of these key experts can lay the foundation for the development of standardized measures of PCC, to ensure monitoring and improvement of PCC.

Dataset Information

Clinician perspectives on inpatient cystatin C utilization: A qualitative case study at Mayo Clinic.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Clinician perspectives on inpatient cystatin C utilization: A qualitative case study at Mayo Clinic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets