Dataset Information

Awareness and Perception of Healthcare Providers about Proxy Consent in Critical Care Research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Proxy consent respects patients' autonomy when they are incapable of providing consent for research participation. Healthcare providers need to understand the ethical regulations and practices relevant to the proxy consent process. Thus, this study aimed to assess the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers about research proxy consent in the ICU setting.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey-based design was used in the study. Study participants were resident and specialist physicians, registered nurses, and registered pharmacists from ICU units in Jordan. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed to assess their knowledge and attitudes towards informed proxy consent for research studies conducted at the ICU.

Results

In this study, 145 healthcare providers completed the study questionnaire. The healthcare providers agreed that the purpose of the proxy consent is to inform the participants about the potential benefits (66.9%) and risks (66.9%) related to the research to study and respect patient's autonomy (44%), to discuss alternative options (62.1%), and to protect the researchers from any litigation (84.1%). Regarding the assessment of proxy consent, 65.5% of respondents believed that relatives are considered as an authorized legal representative for an informed consent decision on behalf of their ICU patients (65.5%) as they are knowledgeable about patients' values and preferences and have the desire to provide the necessary help. Respondents also agreed that the informed consent process should explain research protocols and procedures (76.6%), therapeutic alternatives (84.1%), potential benefits (41.4%), and potential risks (44.1%) and that participation in the research is voluntary (66.9%). No significant differences in the responses were found among different groups of healthcare providers.

Conclusion

The majority of healthcare providers had inadequate awareness about the ethical aspects regarding the informed proxy consent process. Providing training regarding the informed consent process can improve the quality of the proxy consent process in clinical research studies in the ICU setting.

SUBMITTER: Mahafzah R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8497167 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn acute-care hospitals, patients treated in an ICU for surgical reasons or sudden deterioration are treated in an outpatient ward, ICU, and other multiple departments. It is unclear how healthcare providers are initiating advance care planning (ACP) for such patients and assisting them with it. The purpose of this study is to clarify healthcare providers' perceptions of the ACP support provided to patients receiving critical care in acute-care hospitals.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using questionnaires. In this study, 400 acute-care hospitals with ICUs in Japan were randomly selected, and 1490 subjects, including intensivists, surgeons, ICU nurses, surgical floor nurses, and surgical outpatient nurses, participated. Survey items examined whether ICU patients received ACP support, the participants' degree of confidence in providing ACP support, the patients' treatment preferences, and the decision-making process, and whether any discussion was conducted on change of values.ResultsResponses were obtained from 598 participants from 157 hospitals, 41.4% of which reportedly supported ACP provision to ICU patients. The subjects with the highest level of ACP understanding were surgeons (45.8%), and differences in understanding were observed across specialties (P < 0.001). Among the respondents, physicians and nurses expressed high levels of confidence in providing ACP support to patients requiring critical care. However, 15.2% of all the subjects mentioned that they would not attempt to resuscitate the patients. In addition, 25.7% of the participants handed over patients' values to other departments or hospitals, whereas 25.3% handed over the decision-making process.ConclusionsAmong the participating hospitals, 40% provided ACP support to patients receiving critical care. The low number is possibly because support providers lack understanding of the content of patients' ACP or about how to support and use ACP. Second, it is sometimes too late to start providing ACP support after ICU admission. Third, healthcare providers differ in their perception of ACP, widely considered an ambiguous concept. Finally, in acute-care hospitals with different healthcare settings, it is necessary to confirm and integrate the changes in feelings and thoughts of patients.

Project description:Background A revised consensus guideline published in 2020 recommended transitioning vancomycin monitoring to the area under the concentration–time curve over 24 h to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC24/MIC). The decision to transition to AUC24/MIC monitoring or to continue trough-based monitoring is made at the institutional level and is influenced by several factors, including healthcare providers and system-related factors. Changing current practices is expected to be difficult, and it is important to understand healthcare providers’ perceptions and potential barriers before the transition. This study assessed the awareness and perception of physicians and pharmacists toward the revised guideline and identified barriers to their implementation in Kuwait. Methods A cross-sectional survey that employed a self-administered questionnaire was used. A random sample of physicians (n = 390), clinical microbiologists (n = 37), and clinical pharmacists (n = 48) across six Kuwaiti public hospitals were surveyed. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed. Factors associated with awareness and perceptions among the participants were identified. Results The response rate was 85.3% (n = 431). Participants had a high (median = 75%) awareness score for the updated vancomycin guideline, as well as a positive perception (median = 5). The main factor identified to affect the awareness and perception of participants following the group analysis was the years of experience. The main barriers identified were a lack of training to perform vancomycin AUC24 calculations, a lack of accurate documentation sample time, and a long turnaround time for serum levels, which might hinder the implementation of the updated guideline. Conclusion Physicians, clinical microbiologists, and pharmacists working in Kuwait public hospitals were aware of the 2020 vancomycin monitoring guidelines with positive perceptions. Participants agreed on the several barriers to transitioning to the AUC24/MIC approach, which should be considered by stakeholders before implementation.

Project description:BackgroundAn awareness campaign set to accompany the Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) was launched in 2017. In order to better develop and evaluate the campaign, we sought to understand the factors that influence awareness of maternal sepsis by exploring healthcare providers' knowledge, perception of enabling environments, and perception of severity of maternal sepsis.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach that included 13 semi-structured interviews to GLOSS regional and country coordinators and 1555 surveys of providers working in GLOSS participating facilities. Directed content analysis and grounded theory were used for qualitative analysis, based on a framework including four overarching themes around maternal health conditions, determinants of maternal health, barriers and facilitators to sepsis identification and management, plus 24 additional sub-topics that emerged during the interviews. Descriptive statistics for frequencies and percentages were used for the quantitative analysis; significance was tested using Pearson χ2. Logistic regressions were performed to adjust for selected variables.ResultsAnalysis of interviews described limited availability of resources, poor quality of care, insufficient training and lack of protocols as some of the barriers to maternal sepsis identification and management. Analysis from the quantitative survey showed that while 92% of respondents had heard of maternal sepsis only 15% were able to correctly define it and 43% to correctly identify initial management. Provider confidence, perceived availability of resources and of a supportive environment were low (33%, 38%, and 48% respectively). Overall, the predictor that most explained awareness was training. Respondents from the survey and interviewees identified sepsis among the main conditions affecting women at their facilities.ConclusionsAwareness on maternal sepsis, while acknowledged as important, remains low. Healthcare providers need resources and support to feel confident about the correct identification and management of sepsis, as a prerequisite for the improvement of awareness of maternal sepsis. Similarly, providers need to know about maternal sepsis and its severity to understand the importance of reducing sepsis-related mortality and morbidity. Awareness raising campaigns can help bring neglected maternal health conditions, such as sepsis, to the forefront of global and local agendas.

Project description:IntroductionThe management and treatment of Medical Waste (MW) are of great concern owing to its potential hazard to human health and the environment, particularly in developing countries. In Bhutan, although guidelines exist on the prevention and management of wastes, the implementation is still hampered by technological, economic, social difficulties and inadequate training of staff responsible for handling these waste. The study aimed at assessing the awareness and practice of medical waste management among health care providers and support staff at the National Referral Hospital and its compliance with the existing National guidelines and policies.Materials and methodsAn observational cross-sectional study was conducted from March to April 2019. Three research instruments were developed and used; (i) Demographic questionnaire, (ii) Awareness questions, and (iii) the Observational checklist. The data was coded and double entered into Epi data version 3.1 and SPSS version 18 was used for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to present the findings of the study.ResultsThe majority of the respondents were female (54.1%) with a mean age of 32.2 (±7.67) years, most of whom have not received any waste management related training/education (56.8%). About 74.4% are aware of medical waste management and 98.2% are aware on the importance of using proper personal protective equipment. Only 37.6% knew about the maximum time limit for medical waste to be kept in hospital premises is 48 hours. About 61.3% of the observed units/wards/departments correctly segregated the waste in accordance to the national guidelines. However, half of the Hospital wastes are not being correctly transported based on correct segregation process with 58% of waste not segregated into infectious and general wastes.ConclusionThe awareness and practice of medical waste management among healthcare workers is often limited with inadequate sensitization and lack of proper implementation of the existing National guidelines at the study site. Therefore, timely and effective monitoring is required with regular training for healthcare workers and support staff. Furthermore, strengthening the waste management system at National Referral Hospital would provide beneficial impact in enhancing safety measures of patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Develop a standardized simulation method to assess clinical skills of ICU providers. DESIGN:Simulation assessment. SETTING:Simulation laboratory. SUBJECTS:Residents, Critical Care Medicine fellows, acute care nurse practitioner students. INTERVENTIONS:Performance scoring in scenarios from multiple Critical Care Medicine competency domains. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Three-hundred eighty-four performances by 48 participants were scored using checklists (% correct) and holistic "global" ratings (1 [unprepared] to 9 [expert]). One-hundred eighty were scored by two raters. Mean checklist and global scores (± SD) ranged from 65.0% (± 16.3%) to 84.5% (± 17.3%) and 4.7 (± 1.4) to 7.2 (± 1.2). Checklist and global scores for Critical Care Medicine fellows and senior acute care nurse practitioner students (Experienced group, n = 26) were significantly higher than those for the Novice acute care nurse practitioner students (Novice group, n = 14) (75.6% ± 15.6% vs 68.8% ± 21.0% and 6.1?±?1.6 vs 5.4?±?1.5, respectively; p < 0.05). Residents (Intermediate group, n = 8) scored between the two (75.4% ± 18.3% and 5.7?±?1.7). 38.5% of the Experienced group scored in the top quartile for mean global score, compared with 12.5% of the Intermediate and 7.1% of the Novice groups. Conversely, 50% of the Novice group scored in the lower quartile (< 5.3), compared with 37.5% of the Intermediate and 11.5% of the Experienced groups. Psychometric analyses yielded discrimination values greater than 0.3 for most scenarios and reliability for the eight-scenario assessments of 0.51 and 0.60, with interrater reliability of 0.71 and 0.75, for checklist and global scoring, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The simulation assessments yielded reasonably reliable measures of Critical Care Medicine decision-making skills. Despite a wide range of performance, those with more ICU training and experience performed better, providing evidence to support the validity of the scores. Simulation-based assessments may ultimately prove useful to determine readiness to assume decision-making roles in the ICU.

Project description:Well-developed point-of-care (POC) cancer screening tools have the potential to provide better cancer care to patients in both developed and developing countries. However, new medical technology will not be adopted by medical providers unless it addresses a population's existing needs and end-users' preferences. The goals of our study were to assess primary care providers' level of awareness, interest, and preferences in using POC cancer screening technology in their practice and to provide guidelines to biomedical engineers for future POC technology development. A total of 350 primary care providers completed a one-time self-administered online survey, which took approximately 10 minutes to complete. A $50 Amazon gift card was given as an honorarium for the first 100 respondents to encourage participation. The description of POC cancer screening technology was provided in the beginning of the survey to ensure all participants had a basic understanding of what constitutes POC technology. More than half of the participants (57%) stated that they heard of the term "POC technology" for the first time when they took the survey. However, almost all of the participants (97%) stated they were either "very interested" (68%) or "somewhat interested" (29%) in using POC cancer screening technology in their practice. Demographic characteristics such as the length of being in the practice of medicine, the percentage of patients on Medicaid, and the average number of patients per day were not shown to be associated with the level of interest in using POC. These data show that there is a great interest in POC cancer screening technology utilization among this population of primary care providers and vast room for future investigations to further understand the interest and preferences in using POC cancer technology in practice. Ensuring that the benefits of new technology outweigh the costs will maximize the likelihood it will be used by medical providers and patients.