Designing clinical guidelines that improve access and satisfaction in the emergency department.

Clinical guidelines are evidence-based clinician decision-support tools that improve health outcomes, reduce patient harm, and decrease healthcare costs, but are often underused in emergency departments (EDs). This article describes a replicable, evidence-based design-thinking approach to developing best practices for guideline design that improves clinical satisfaction and usage. We used a 5-step process to enhance guideline usability in our ED. First, we conducted end-user interviews to identify barriers to guideline usage. Second, we reviewed the literature to identify key principles in guideline design. Third, we applied our findings to create a standardized guideline format, incorporating rapid cycle learning and iterative improvements. Fourth, we ensured the clinical validity of our updated guidelines by using a rigorous process for peer review. Lastly, we evaluated the impact of our guideline conversion process by tracking clinical guidelines access per day from October 2020 to January 2022. Our end-user interviews and review of the design literature revealed several barriers to guideline use, including lack of readability, design inconsistencies, and guideline complexity. Although our previous clinical guideline system averaged 0.13 users per day, >43 users per day accessed the clinical guidelines on our new digital platform in January 2022, representing an increase in access and use exceeding 33,000%. Our replicable process using open-access resources increased clinician access to and satisfaction with clinical guidelines in our ED. Design-thinking and use of low-cost technology can significantly improve clinical guideline visibility and has the potential to increase guideline use.

Team and leadership factors and their relationship to burnout in emergency medicine during COVID-19: A 3-wave cross-sectional study.

Objective: We examined the relationship of team and leadership attributes with clinician feelings of burnout over time during the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: We surveyed emergency medicine personnel at 2 California hospitals at 3 time points: July 2020, December 2020, and November 2021. We assessed 3 team and leadership attributes using previously validated psychological scales (joint problem-solving, process clarity, and leader inclusiveness) and burnout using a validated scale. Using logistic regression models we determined the associations between team and leadership attributes and burnout, controlling for covariates. Results: We obtained responses from 328, 356, and 260 respondents in waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively (mean response rate = 49.52%). The median response for feelings of burnout increased over time (2.0, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.0-3.0 in wave 1 to 3.0, IQR = 2.0-3.0 in wave 3). At all time points, greater process clarity was associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36 [0.19, 0.66] in wave 1 to 0.24 [0.10, 0.61] in wave 3). In waves 2 and 3, greater joint problem-solving was associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (OR [95% CI] = 0.61 [0.42, 0.89], 0.54 [0.33, 0.88]). Leader inclusiveness was also associated with lower odds of feeling burnout (OR [95% CI] = 0.45 [0.27, 0.74] in wave 1 to 0.41 [0.24, 0.69] in wave 3). Conclusions: Process clarity, joint problem-solving, and leader inclusiveness are associated with less clinician burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing to potential benefits of focusing on team and leadership factors during crisis. Leader inclusiveness may wane over time, requiring effort to sustain.

How psychological safety and feeling heard relate to burnout and adaptation amid uncertainty.

BACKGROUND: Psychological safety-the belief that it is safe to speak up-is vital amid uncertainty, but its relationship to feeling heard is not well understood. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were (a) to measure feeling heard and (b) to assess how psychological safety and feeling heard relate to one another as well as to burnout, worsening burnout, and adaptation during uncertainty. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of emergency department staff and clinicians (response rate = 52%; analytic N = 241) in July 2020. The survey measured psychological safety, feeling heard, overall burnout, worsening burnout, and perceived process adaptation during the COVID-19 crisis. We assessed descriptive statistics and construct measurement properties, and we assessed relationships among the variables using generalized structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Psychological safety and feeling heard demonstrated acceptable measurement properties and were correlated at r = .54. Levels of feeling heard were lower on average than psychological safety. Psychological safety and feeling heard were both statistically significantly associated with lower burnout and greater process adaptation. Only psychological safety exhibited a statistically significant relationship with less worsening burnout during crisis. We found evidence that feeling heard mediates psychological safety's relationship to burnout and process adaptation. CONCLUSION: Psychological safety is important but not sufficient for feeling heard. Feeling heard may help mitigate burnout and enable adaptation during uncertainty. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: For health care leaders, expanding beyond psychological safety to also establish a feeling of being heard may further reduce burnout and improve care processes.

Masked and distanced: a qualitative study of how personal protective equipment and distancing affect teamwork in emergency care.

BACKGROUND: Newly intensified use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in emergency departments presents teamwork challenges affecting the quality and safety of care at the frontlines. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a qualitative study to categorize and describe barriers to teamwork posed by PPE and distancing in the emergency setting. METHODS: We conducted 55 semi-structured interviews between June 2020 and August 2020 with personnel from two emergency departments serving in a variety of roles. We then performed a thematic analysis to identify and construct patterns of teamwork challenges into themes. RESULTS: We discovered two types of challenges to teamwork: material barriers related to wearing masks, gowns and powered air-purifying respirators, and spatial barriers implemented to conserve PPE and limit coronavirus exposure. Both material and spatial barriers resulted in disrupted communication, roles and interpersonal relationships, but they did so in unique ways. Material barriers muffled information flow, impeded team member recognition and role/task division, and reduced belonging and cohesion while increasing interpersonal strain. Spatial barriers resulted in mediated communication and added physical and emotional distance between teammates and patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings identify specific aspects of how intensified PPE use disrupts teamwork and can inform efforts to ensure care quality and safety in emergency settings as PPE use continues during and, potentially beyond, the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic.

Building Back Better: Applying Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic to Expand Critical Information Access.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated an unprecedented volume of evolving clinical guidelines that strained existing clinical information systems and necessitated rapid innovation in emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVES: Our team aimed to harness new COVID-19-related reliance on digital clinical support tools to re-envision how all clinical guidelines are stored and accessed in our ED. METHODS: We used a design-thinking approach including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing to develop a low-cost, homegrown clinical information hub: E*Drive. To measure impact, we compared web traffic on E*Drive to our legacy cloud-based folder system and conducted a survey of end-users using a validated health technology utilization instrument. RESULTS: Our final product, E*Drive, is a centralized clinical information hub storing everything from clinical guidelines to discharge resources. Clinical guidelines are standardized and housed within the high-traffic E*Drive platform to increase accessibility. Since launch, E*Drive has averaged 84 unique weekly users, compared with less than one weekly user on the legacy system. We surveyed 52 clinicians for a total response rate of 47%. Prior to the E*Drive rollout, 12.5% of ED clinicians felt confident accessing clinical information on the legacy system, whereas 76.6% of ED clinicians felt they could more easily access clinical information using E*Drive. CONCLUSION: The COVID pandemic revealed vulnerabilities within our information dissemination system and presented an opportunity to improve clinical information delivery. Centralized web-based clinical information hubs designed around the clinician end-user experience can increase clinical guideline access in the ED.