Dataset Information

An evaluation of factors that may influence clinicians' decisions not to enroll eligible patients into randomized trials in critical care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the association between intensive care unit (ICU) characteristics and clinicians' decision to decline eligible patients for randomization into a multicentered pragmatic comparative-effectiveness controlled trial.

Methods

Screening logs from the Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Septic Shock Trial (ADRENAL) and site-level data from the College of Intensive Care Medicine and Australia New Zealand Intensive Care Society were examined. The effects of ICU characteristics such as tertiary academic status, research coordinator availability, number of admissions, and ICU affiliations on clinicians declining to randomize eligible patients were calculated using mixed effects logistic regression modelling.

Results

There were 21,818 patients screened for inclusion in the ADRENAL trial at 69 sites across five countries, out of which 5,501 were eligible, 3,800 were randomized and 659 eligible patients were declined for randomization by the treating clinician. The proportion of eligible patients declined by clinicians at individual ICUs ranged from 0 to41%. In the multivariable model, none of the ICU characteristics were significantly associated with higher clinician decline rate.

Conclusions

Neither tertiary academic status, nor other site-level variables were significantly associated with increased rate of clinicians declining eligible patients.

SUBMITTER: Ramanan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315530 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective and efficient implementation of the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for depression and anxiety is imperative for program success. Studies examining barriers to implementation often omit patient perspectives.ObjectivesTo explore experiences and attitudes of eligible patients referred to CoCM who declined participation or were unable to be reached, and identify implementation barriers to inform strategies.DesignConvergent mixed-methods study with a survey and interview.ParticipantsPrimary care patients at an academic medical center who were referred to a CoCM program for anxiety and depression by their primary care clinician (PCC) but declined participation or were unable to be reached by the behavioral health care manager to initiate care (n = 80). Interviews were conducted with 45 survey respondents.Main measuresSurvey of patients' referral experiences and behavioral health preferences as they related to failing to enroll in the program. Interview questions were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research version 2.0 (CFIR 2.0) to identify implementation barriers to enrollment.Key resultsSurvey results found that patients were uncertain about insurance coverage, did not understand the program, and felt services were not necessary. Referred patients who declined participation were concerned about how their mental health information would be used and preferred treatment without medication. Men agreed more that they did not need services. Qualitative results exhibited a variety of implementation determinants (n = 23) across the five CFIR 2.0 domains. Barriers included mental health stigma, perceiving behavioral health as outside of primary care practice guidelines, short or infrequent primary care appointments, prioritizing physical health over mental health, receiving inaccurate program information, low motivation to engage, and a less established relationship with their PCC.ConclusionsMultiple barriers to enrollment led to failing to link patients to care, which can inform implementation strategies to address the patient-reported experiences and concerns.

Project description:Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians' opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed 'blockages'. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating 'enhanced care' units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.

Project description:Trauma resuscitation practices have continued to improve with new advances targeting prehospital interventions. The critical care burden associated with severely injured patients at risk of hemorrhage has been poorly characterized. We aim to describe the individual and additive effects of multiorgan failure (MOF) and nosocomial infection (NI) on delayed mortality and resource utilization. A secondary analysis of harmonized data from two large prehospital randomized controlled trials (Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial and Study of Tranexamic Acid during Air and Ground Medical Prehospital Transport (STAAMP) Trial) was conducted. Only those patients who survived beyond the first 24 hours post-injury and spent at least one day in the ICU were included. Patients were stratified by development of MOF only, NI only, both, or neither and diagnosis of early (≤ 3 days) versus late MOF (> 3 days). Risk factors of NI and MOF, time course of these ICU complications, associated mortality, and hospital resource utilization were evaluated. Of the 869 patients who were enrolled in PAMPer and STAAMP and who met study criteria, 27.4% developed MOF only (n = 238), 10.9% developed NI only (n = 95), and 15.3% were diagnosed with both MOF and NI (n = 133). Patients developing NI and/or MOF compared to those who had an uncomplicated ICU course had greater injury severity, lower GCS, and greater shock indexes. Early MOF occurred in isolation, while late MOF more often followed NI. MOF was associated with 65% higher independent risk of 30-day mortality when adjusting for cofounders (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.04-2.6; p = 0.03), however NI did not significantly affect odds of mortality. NI was individually associated with longer mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, hospital stay, and rehabilitation requirements, and the addition of MOF further increased the burden of inpatient and post-discharge care. MOF and NI remain common complications for those who survive traumatic injury. MOF is a robust independent predictor of mortality following injury in this cohort, and NI is associated with higher resource utilization. Timing of these ICU complications may reveal differences in pathophysiology and offer targets for continued advancements in treatment.

Project description:ObjectiveLittle is known about clinicians' decision-making about decreasing active surveillance (AS) testing/converting patients to watchful waiting (WW), nor are there any guidelines. The objective of this study was to identify factors that clinicians consider when decreasing AS testing/converting to WW for men with prostate cancer.DesignExploratory qualitative study.SettingAll participants practiced in various institutions in the USA.ParticipantsEligible clinicians had to provide clinical care for patients with prostate cancer in the USA and speak English. Clinicians could be either urologists or radiation oncologists. Of the 24 clinicians, 83% were urologists representing 11 states, 92% were men and 62% were white.MethodsThis qualitative study used data from semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure geographical variation in the USA. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Framework analysis guided coding and identification of themes. Two researchers coded all transcripts independently, met to discuss and reached consensus.ResultsInterviews with clinicians demonstrated that testing or monitoring for AS or transitioning to WW is happening in practice, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Decisions to decrease AS were personalised and tailored to patients' health status. Life expectancy was the dominant factor that influenced decision, but clinicians were generally hesitant to specify an age when they would decrease AS or transition to WW. Fear that poor adherence could lead to missed progression and concerns about the medico-legal issue of not doing enough were cited as barriers to decreasing AS.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that in certain situations, AS frequency is reduced or transitioned to WW, yet decisions appear to be inconsistent and there are no significant barriers. These findings could inform further areas to explore when drafting recommendations that consider patients' values and preferences when making decisions about decreasing AS/converting to WW.

Project description:ImportanceIt is unclear whether burnout, anxiety, and depression constitute the same or different constructs. Better understanding of these constructs is important for diagnosis and treatment for intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians.ObjectiveTo determine the associations and distinctiveness of burnout, depression, and anxiety in a sample of ICU clinicians.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used baseline data from the ICU Visits Study, a cluster-randomized crossover clinical trial conducted from April 2017 to July 2018 in 36 mixed public and private nonprofit ICUs in Brazil. ICU clinicians, including day-shift physicians, nurses, nurse technicians, and physiotherapists working in an ICU at least 20 hours per week, were enrolled. Data were analyzed from December 27, 2019, to October 10, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome measures were burnout, depression, and anxiety measured with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; range, 0-6, with high scores indicating more burnout) and the Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale (HADS; range, 0-3, with higher scores indicating more depression or anxiety). Internal consistencies were satisfactory.ResultsThe total sample included 715 ICU clinicians (median [interquartile range] age, 34.8 [30.2-39.3] years; 520 [72.7%] women), including 96 physicians (13.4%), 159 nurses (22.2%), 358 nurse technicians (50.1%), and 102 physiotherapists (14.3%). Clinicians reported low levels of emotional exhaustion (mean [SD] score, 1.84 [1.18]), depersonalization (mean [SD] score, 0.98 [1.03]), and personal accomplishment (mean [SD] score, 5.05 [0.87]) on the MBI, and similarly low levels of depression (mean [SD] score, 0.54 [0.40]) and anxiety (mean [SD] score, 0.70 [0.45]) on the HADS. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently showed improved fit separating latent burnout dimensions from depression and anxiety. An exploratory graph analysis combining gaussian graphical model with clustering algorithms for weighted networks suggested 3 clusters, with distinct burnout, anxiety, and depression clusters. This structure was confirmed using a bootstrap with 1000 random samples, in which the 3-cluster solution emerged in 625 samples (62.5%). Both latent variable loadings and network statistics suggested 3 key indicators (ie, feeling burned out from work, worrying thoughts, and reverse-scored reporting feeling cheerful) that can be used for short screening instruments.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that burnout and clinical symptoms of depression and anxiety were empirically distinct in a large sample of ICU clinicians, highlighting the importance of screening for burnout and clinical symptoms to allow fast access to adequate support and treatment in health professionals at high risk of burnout.