Feasibility of implementing Extubation Advisor, a clinical decision support tool to improve extubation decision-making in the ICU: a mixed-methods observational study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Although spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are standard of care to extubation readiness, no tool exists that optimises prediction and standardises assessment. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility and clinical impressions of Extubation Advisor (EA), a comprehensive clinical extubation decision support (CDS) tool.Design
Phase I mixed-methods observational study.Setting
Two Canadian intensive care units (ICUs).Participants
We included patients on mechanical ventilation for ≥24 hours and clinicians (respiratory therapists and intensivists) responsible for extubation decisions.Interventions
Components included a predictive model assessment, feasibility evaluation, questionnaires and interviews with clinicians.Results
We enrolled 117 patients, totalling 151 SBTs and 80 extubations. The incidence of extubation failure was 11% in low-risk patients and 21% in high-risk patients stratified by the predictive model; 38% failed extubation when both the model and clinical impression were at high risk. The tool was well rated: 94% and 75% rated the data entry and EA report as average or better, respectively. Interviews (n=15) revealed favourable impressions regarding its user interface and functionality, but unexpectedly, also concerns regarding EA's potential impact on respiratory therapists' job security.Conclusions
EA implementation was feasible, and users perceived it to have potential to support extubation decision-making. This study helps to understand bedside implementation of CDS tools in a multidisciplinary ICU.Trial registration number
NCT02988167.
SUBMITTER: Sarti AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8362728 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4977650 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC7301503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the last decade, novel immunotherapeutic strategies, in particular antibodies directed against immune checkpoint inhibitors, have revolutionized the treatment of different malignancies leading to an improved survival of patients. Identification of immune-related biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring of immune responses and selection of patients for specific cancer immunotherapies is urgently required and therefore areas of intensive research. Easily accessible samples in particular liquid biopsies (body fluids), such as blood, saliva or urine, are preferred for serial tumor biopsies.Although monitoring of immune and tumor responses prior, during and post immunotherapy has led to significant advances of patients' outcome, valid and stable prognostic biomarkers are still missing. This might be due to the limited capacity of the technologies employed, reproducibility of results as well as assay stability and validation of results. Therefore solid approaches to assess immune regulation and modulation as well as to follow up the nature of the tumor in liquid biopsies are urgently required to discover valuable and relevant biomarkers including sample preparation, timing of the collection and the type of liquid samples. This article summarizes our knowledge of the well-known liquid material in a new context as liquid biopsy and focuses on collection and assay requirements for the analysis and the technical developments that allow the implementation of different high-throughput assays to detect alterations at the genetic and immunologic level, which could be used for monitoring treatment efficiency, acquired therapy resistance mechanisms and the prognostic value of the liquid biopsies.
| S-EPMC5564665 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundChronic pain has emerged as a disease in itself, affecting a growing number of people. Effective patient-provider communication is central to good pain management because pain can only be understood from the patient's perspective. We aimed to develop a user-centered tool to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain and assess its feasibility in real-world settings in preparation for further evaluation and distribution.MethodsTo identify and prioritize patient treatment goals for chronic pain, strategies to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain, and facilitate implementation of the tool, we conducted nominal group technique meetings and card sorting with patients with chronic pain and experienced providers (n = 12). These findings informed the design of the PainAPP tool. Usability and beta-testing with patients (n = 38) and their providers refined the tool and assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact.ResultsFormative work revealed that patients felt neither respected nor trusted by their providers and focused on transforming providers' negative attitudes towards them, whereas providers focused on gathering patient information. PainAPP incorporated areas prioritized by patients and providers: assessing patient treatment goals and preferences, functional abilities and pain, and providing patients tailored education and an overall summary that patients can share with providers. Beta-testing involved 38 patients and their providers. Half of PainAPP users shared their summaries with their providers. Patients rated PainAPP highly in all areas. All users would recommend it to others with chronic pain; nearly all trusted the information and said it helped them think about my treatment goals (94%), understand my chronic pain (82%), make the most of my next doctor's visit (82%), and not want to use opioids (73%). Beta-testing revealed challenges delivering the tool and summary report to patients and providers in a timely manner and obtaining provider feedback.ConclusionsPainAPP appears feasible for use, but further adaptation and testing is needed to assess its impact on patients and providers.Trial registrationThis study was approved by the University of New England Independent Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (012616-019) and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol ID: NCT03425266) prior to enrollment. The trial was prospectively registered and was approved on February 7, 2018.
| S-EPMC7568350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo characterize the feedback of patients with thyroid nodules receiving care using a shared decision making (SDM) tool designed to improve conversations with their clinicians related to diagnostic options (e.g. thyroid biopsy, ultrasound surveillance).MethodsInvestigators qualitatively analyzed post-encounter interviews with patients to characterize their feedback of a SDM tool used during their clinical visits. Additionally, investigators counted instances of diagnostic choice awareness and of patients' expression of a diagnostic management preference in recordings of clinical encounters of adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules in which the SDM tool was used.ResultsIn total, 53 patients (42 (79%) women); median age 62 years were enrolled and had consultations supported by the SDM tool. Patients were favorable about the design of the SDM tool and its ability to convey information about options and support patient-clinician interactions. Patients identified opportunities to improve the tool through adding more content and improve its use in practice through training of clinicians in its use. There was evidence of diagnostic choice awareness in 52 (98%) of these visits and patients expressed a diagnostic management preference in 40 (76%).ConclusionUser centered design including feedback from patients and real life observation supports the use of the SDM tool to facilitate collaboration between patients and clinicians.
| S-EPMC10292116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Social distancing is the practice of restricting contact among persons to prevent the spread of infection. This study sought to (1) identify key features of preparedness and the primary concerns of local public health officials in deciding to implement social distancing measures and (2) determine whether any particular factor could explain the widespread variation among health departments in responses to past outbreaks. METHODS:We conducted an online survey of health departments in the United States in 2015 to understand factors influencing health departments' decision making when choosing whether to implement social distancing measures. We paired survey results with data on area population demographic characteristics and analyzed them with a focus on broad trends. RESULTS:Of 600 health departments contacted, 150 (25%) responded. Of these 150 health departments, 63 (42%) indicated that they had implemented social distancing in the past 10 years. Only 10 (7%) health departments had a line-item budget for isolation or quarantine. The most common concern about social distancing was public health impact (n = 62, 41%). Concerns about law, politics, finances, vulnerable populations, and sociocultural issues were each identified by 7% to 10% of health departments. We were unable to clearly predict which factors would influence these decisions. CONCLUSIONS:Variations in the decision to implement social distancing are likely the result of differences in organizational authority and resources and in the primary concerns about implementing social distancing. Research and current social distancing guidelines for health departments should address these factors.
| S-EPMC6410485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale, aims, and objectivesDecisions 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.MethodsA mixed method study including quantitative assessment of usage and qualitative interviews.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsWhile 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.
| S-EPMC7003751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe ICU is a place of frequent, high-stakes decision making. However, the number and types of decisions made by intensivists have not been well characterized. We sought to describe intensivist decision making and determine how the number and types of decisions are affected by patient, provider, and systems factors.DesignDirect observation of intensivist decision making during patient rounds.SettingTwenty-four-bed academic medical ICU.SubjectsMedical intensivists leading patient care rounds.InterventionNone.Measurements and main resultsDuring 920 observed patient rounds on 374 unique patients, intensivists made 8,174 critical care decisions (mean, 8.9 decisions per patient daily, 102.2 total decisions daily) over a mean of 3.7 hours. Patient factors associated with increased numbers of decisions included a shorter time since ICU admission and an earlier slot in rounding order (both p < 0.05). Intensivist identity explained the greatest proportion of variance in number of decisions per patient even when controlling for all other factors significant in bivariable regression. A given intensivist made more decisions per patient during days later in the 14-day rotation (p < 0.05). Female intensivists made significantly more decisions than male intensivists (p < 0.05).ConclusionsIntensivists made over 100 daily critical care decisions during rounds. The number of decisions was influenced by a variety of patient- and system-related factors and was highly variable among intensivists. Future work is needed to explore effects of the decision-making burden on providers' choices and on patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC8120648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOne in fi ve deaths in the United States occurs in the ICU, and many of these deaths are experienced as less than optimal by families of dying people. The current study investigated the relationship between family satisfaction with ICU care and overall ratings of the quality of dying as a means of identifying targets for improving end-of-life experiences for patients and families.MethodsThis multisite cross-sectional study surveyed families of patients who died in the ICU in one of 15 hospitals in western Washington State. Measures included the Family Satisfaction in the ICU (FS-ICU) and the Single-Item Quality of Dying (QOD-1) questionnaires. Associations between FS-ICU items and the QOD-1 were examined using multivariate linear regression controlling for patient and family demographics and hospital site.ResultsQuestionnaires were returned for 1,290 of 2,850 decedents (45%). Higher QOD-1 scores were significantly associated (all P < .05) with (1) perceived nursing skill and competence (β= 0.15), (2) support for family as decision-makers ( β= 0.10), (3) family control over the patient’s care( β= 0.18), and (4) ICU atmosphere (β= 0.12). FS-ICU items that received low ratings and correlated with higher QOD-1 scores (ie, important items with room for improvement) were (1) support of family as decision-maker, (2) family control over patient’s care, and (3) ICU atmosphere.ConclusionsIncreased support for families as decision-makers and for their desired level of control over patient care along with improvements in the ICU atmosphere were identified as aspects of the ICU experience that may be important targets for quality improvement.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00685893; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.
| S-EPMC3494471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop and probe the first computerised decision-support tool to provide antidepressant treatment guidance to general practitioners (GPs) in UK primary care.DesignA parallel group, cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial, where individual participants were blind to treatment allocation.SettingSouth London NHS GP practices.ParticipantsTen practices and eighteen patients with treatment-resistant current major depressive disorder.InterventionsPractices were randomised to two treatment arms: (a) treatment-as-usual, (b) computerised decision support tool.ResultsTen GP practices participated in the trial, which was within our target range (8-20). However, practice and patient recruitment were slower than anticipated and only 18 of 86 intended patients were recruited. This was due to fewer than expected patients being eligible for the study, as well as disruption resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Only one patient was lost to follow-up. There were no serious or medically important adverse events during the trial. GPs in the decision tool arm indicated moderate support for the tool. A minority of patients fully engaged with the mobile app-based tracking of symptoms, medication adherence and side effects.ConclusionsOverall, feasibility was not shown in the current study and the following modifications would be needed to attempt to overcome the limitations found: (a) inclusion of patients who have only tried one Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor, rather than two, to improve recruitment and pragmatic relevance of the study; (b) approaching community pharmacists to implement tool recommendations rather than GPs; (c) further funding to directly interface between the decision support tool and self-reported symptom app; (d) increasing the geographic reach by not requiring detailed diagnostic assessments and replacing this with supported remote self-report.Trial registration numberNCT03628027.
| S-EPMC9990646 | biostudies-literature