Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
JAMA Dermatol ; 157(3): 330-337, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453488

ABSTRACT

Importance: Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve the quality of care for patients. The extent to which this tool has been used and the evidence supporting its use in dermatology have not been systematically examined. Objective: To perform a scoping review of the literature regarding SDM in dermatology. Evidence Review: Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sciverse Scopus, and EBM Reviews were conduced on July 11, 2019, and March 6, 2020. There were no limits on date, type of article, language, or subject for the initial search. A total of 1673 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers in the Covidence mixed-methods platform. Forty-one full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to include a dermatologic diagnosis as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Two independent reviewers screened 29 full-text articles for inclusion and extracted qualitative data using a set of 26 predefined codes. Qualitative coding was applied to excerpts to categorize the article, define and describe advantages and disadvantages of SDM, understand patient and physician requests for SDM, and discuss methods of implementation. Findings: Despite a small number of articles on SDM (n = 29) in dermatology, the selected literature provided consistent messages regarding the importance of SDM for dermatology and a number of strategies and tools for implementation. Medical dermatology was the most common subspecialty studied, with melanoma, psoriasis, and connective tissue diseases most examined. Only 5 publications introduced SDM tools specifically for dermatologic conditions; of these, only 2 tools were validated. Barriers to implementation that were cited included time and a lack of training for clinicians, although the literature also provided potential solutions to these issues. All articles emphasized the value of SDM for both patients and physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: The literature regarding SDM in dermatology consistently suggests that it is a useful tool for providing patient-centered care. Established tools have been proposed since 2012. More research is needed to implement better practices, especially in dermatologic subspecialties. However, there are substantial suggestions from the literature for strategies and tools with which to begin a shared decision-making practice.


Subject(s)
Decision Making, Shared , Dermatology/standards , Quality of Health Care , Humans , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Skin Diseases/therapy
2.
Acad Med ; 96(11): 1534-1539, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1153258

ABSTRACT

Patient-provider communication is a hallmark of high-quality care and patient safety; however, the pace and increasingly complex challenges that face overextended teams strain even the most dedicated clinicians. The COVID-19 pandemic has further disrupted communication between clinicians and their patients and families. The dependence on phone communication and the physical barriers of protective gear limit nonverbal communication and diminish clinicians' ability to recognize and respond to emotion. Developing new approaches to teach communication skills to trainees who are often responsible for communicating with patients and their families is challenging, especially during a pandemic or other crisis. "Just-in-time" simulation-simulation-based training immediately before an intervention-provides the scaffolding and support trainees need for conducting difficult conversations, and it enhances patients' and families' experiences. Using a realistic scenario, the author illustrates key steps for effectively using just-in-time simulation-based communication training: assessing the learner's understanding of the situation; determining what aspects of the encounter may prove most challenging; providing a script as a cognitive aid; refreshing or teaching a specific skill; preparing learners emotionally through reflection and mental rehearsal; coaching on the approach, pace, and tone for a delivery that conveys empathy and meaning; and providing specific, honest, and curious feedback to close a performance gap. Additionally, the author acknowledges that clinical conditions sometimes require learning by observing rather than doing and has thus provided guidance for making the most of vicarious observational learning: identify potential challenges in the encounter and explicitly connect them to trainee learning goals, explain why a more advanced member of the team is conducting the conversation, ask the trainee to observe and prepare feedback, choose the location carefully, identify everyone's role at the beginning of the conversation, debrief, share reactions, and thank the trainee for their feedback and observations.


Subject(s)
Clinical Competence/standards , Learning/physiology , Observation/methods , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Training Support/organization & administration , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/virology , Cognition/physiology , Communication , Computer Simulation , Emotions/physiology , Empathy/physiology , Feedback , Humans , Male , Patient Safety , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
3.
Prof Case Manag ; 26(2): 62-69, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1087857

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the disease known as COVID-19, case management has emerged as a critical intervention in the treatment of cases, particularly for patients with severe symptoms and medical complications. In addition, case managers have been on the front lines of the response across the health care spectrum to reduce risks of contagion, including among health care workers. The purpose of this article is to discuss the case management response, highlighting the importance of individual care plans to provide access to the right care and treatment at the right time to address both the consequences of the disease and patient comorbidities. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTINGS: The COVID-19 response spans the full continuum of health and human services, including acute care, subacute care, workers' compensation (especially catastrophic case management), home health, primary care, and community-based care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: From the earliest days of the pandemic, case managers have assumed an important role on the front lines of the medical response to COVID-19, ensuring that procedures are in place for managing a range of patients: those who were symptomatic but able to self-isolate and care for themselves at home; those who had serious symptoms and needed to be hospitalized; and those who were asymptomatic and needed to be educated about the importance of self-isolating. Across the care spectrum, individualized responses to the clinical and psychosocial needs of patients with COVID-19 in acute care, subacute care, home health, and other outpatient settings have been guided by the well-established case management process of screening, assessing, planning, implementing, following up, transitioning, and evaluating. In addition, professional case managers are guided by values such as advocacy, ensuring access to the right care and treatment at the right time; autonomy, respecting the right to self-determination; and justice, promoting fairness and equity in access to resources and treatment. The value of justice also addresses the sobering reality that people from racial and ethnic minority groups are at an increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19. Going forward, case management will continue to play a major role in supporting patients with COVID-19, in both inpatient and outpatient settings, with telephonic follow-up and greater use of telehealth.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/nursing , Case Management/standards , Critical Care Nursing/education , Health Personnel/education , Health Personnel/psychology , Patient Care Planning/standards , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Adult , Case Management/statistics & numerical data , Curriculum , Education, Nursing, Continuing , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Care Planning/statistics & numerical data , Patient-Centered Care/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Psychiatr Serv ; 72(1): 86-88, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1060599

ABSTRACT

To address the global mental health crisis exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, an urgent need has emerged to transform the accessibility, efficiency, and quality of mental health care. The next suite of efforts to transform mental health care must foster the implementation of "learning organizations," that is, organizations that continuously improve patient-centered care through ongoing data collection. The concept of learning organizations is highly regarded, but the key features of such organizations, particularly those providing mental health care, are less well defined. Using telepsychiatry care as an example, the authors of this Open Forum concretely describe the key building blocks for operationalizing a learning organization in mental health care to set a research agenda for services transformation.


Subject(s)
Data Collection , Health Services Research/organization & administration , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Psychiatry/organization & administration , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Telemedicine/organization & administration , COVID-19 , Data Collection/standards , Health Services Research/standards , Humans , Implementation Science , Mental Health Services/standards , Organizations , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Psychiatry/standards , Quality Improvement/standards , Stakeholder Participation , Telemedicine/standards
5.
Adv Neonatal Care ; 21(3): 205-213, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1015397

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Family-centered care contributes to improved outcomes for preterm and ill infants. Little is known about the perceptions of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) healthcare professionals regarding the degree to which their NICU practices or values family-centered care. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to describe attitudes and beliefs of NICU healthcare professionals about family-centered care and to explore professional characteristics that might influence those views. METHODS: Data were derived from the baseline phase of a multicenter quasi-experimental study comparing usual family-centered NICU care with mobile-enhanced family-integrated care. Neonatal intensive care unit healthcare professionals completed the Family-Centered Care Questionnaire-Revised (FCCQ-R), a 45-item measure of 9 core dimensions of Current Practice and Necessary Practice for family-centered care. RESULTS: A total of 382 (43%) NICU healthcare professionals from 6 NICUs completed 1 or more of the FCCQ-R subscales, 83% were registered nurses. Total and subscale scores on the Necessary Practice scale were consistently higher than those on the Current Practice scale for all dimensions of family-centered care (mean: 4.40 [0.46] vs 3.61 [0.53], P < .001). Only years of hospital experience and NICU site were significantly associated with Current Practice and Necessary Practice total scores. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Ongoing assessment of the perceptions of NICU healthcare professionals regarding their current practice and beliefs about what is necessary for the delivery of high-quality family-centered care can inform NICU education, quality improvement, and maintenance of family-centered care during the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further research is needed to identify additional factors that predict family-centered care perceptions and behaviors.


Subject(s)
Intensive Care Units, Neonatal/standards , Intensive Care, Neonatal/standards , Nursing Staff, Hospital/psychology , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Professional-Family Relations , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Infant, Newborn
7.
J Psychosom Res ; 139: 110271, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-838890

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Fear associated with medical vulnerability should be considered when assessing mental health among individuals with chronic medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective was to develop and validate the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions. METHODS: Fifteen initial items were generated based on suggestions from 121 people with the chronic autoimmune disease systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). Patients in a COVID-19 SSc cohort completed items between April 9 and 27, 2020. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and item analysis were used to select items for inclusion. Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate internal consistency reliability and convergent validity. Factor structure was confirmed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in follow-up data collection two weeks later. RESULTS: 787 participants completed baseline measures; 563 of them completed the follow-up assessment. Ten of 15 initial items were included in the final questionnaire. EFA suggested that a single dimension explained the data reasonably well. There were no indications of floor or ceiling effects. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91. Correlations between the COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire and measures of anxiety (r = 0.53), depressive symptoms (r = 0.44), and perceived stress (r = 0.50) supported construct validity. CFA supported the single-factor structure (χ2(35) = 311.2, p < 0.001, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.97, Comparative Fit Index = 0.96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.12). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 Fears Questionnaire for Chronic Medical Conditions can be used to assess fear among people at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Chronic Disease/psychology , Fear/psychology , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Scleroderma, Systemic/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Psychometrics/methods , Psychometrics/standards , Reproducibility of Results , Scleroderma, Systemic/epidemiology
9.
Pediatrics ; 146(2)2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-719669

ABSTRACT

To control the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019, many hospitals have strict visitor restriction policies. These policies often prohibit both parents from visiting at the same time or having grandparents or other family members visit at all. We discuss cases in which such policies created ethical dilemmas and possibly called for compassionate exceptions from the general rules.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Child, Hospitalized/psychology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient-Centered Care/ethics , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Visitors to Patients/psychology , Adolescent , COVID-19 , Child , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Family , Female , Health Policy , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Infection Control/standards , Male , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL