Cognitive, Functional, and Quality of Life Outcomes 6 Months After Mechanical Ventilation for Bronchiolitis: A Secondary Analysis of Data From the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure Trial ( RESTORE ).

OBJECTIVES: To describe rates and associated risk factors for functional decline 6 months after critical bronchiolitis in a large, multicenter dataset. DESIGN: Nonprespecified secondary analysis of existing 6-month follow-up data of patients in the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure trial ( RESTORE , NCT00814099). SETTING: Patients recruited to RESTORE in any of 31 PICUs in the United States, 2009-2013. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated PICU patients under 2 years at admission with a primary diagnosis of bronchiolitis. INTERVENTIONS: There were no interventions in this secondary analysis; in the RESTORE trial, PICUs were randomized to protocolized sedation versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: "Functional decline," defined as worsened Pediatric Overall Performance Category and/or Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) scores at 6 months post-PICU discharge as compared with preillness baseline. Quality of life was assessed using Infant Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire (ITQOL; children < 2 yr old at follow-up) or Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) at 6 months post-PICU discharge. In a cohort of 232 bronchiolitis patients, 28 (12%) had functional decline 6 months postdischarge, which was associated with unfavorable quality of life in several ITQOL and PedsQL domains. Among 209 patients with normal baseline functional status, 19 (9%) had functional decline. In a multivariable model including all subjects, decline was associated with greater odds of worse baseline PCPC score and longer PICU length of stay (LOS). In patients with normal baseline status, decline was also associated with greater odds of longer PICU LOS. CONCLUSIONS: In a random sampling of RESTORE subjects, 12% of bronchiolitis patients had functional decline at 6 months. Given the high volume of mechanically ventilated patients with bronchiolitis, this observation suggests many young children may be at risk of new morbidities after PICU admission, including functional and/or cognitive morbidity and reduced quality of life.

Approach to Human-Centered, Evidence-Driven Adaptive Design (AHEAD) for Health Care Interventions: a Proposed Framework.

Human-centered design (HCD), an empathy-driven approach to innovation that focuses on user needs, offers promise for the rapid design of health care interventions that are acceptable to patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Reviews of HCD in healthcare, however, note a need for greater rigor, suggesting an opportunity for integration of elements from traditional research and HCD. A strategy that combines HCD principles with evidence-grounded health services research (HSR) methods has the potential to strengthen the innovation process and outcomes. In this paper, we review the strengths and limitations of HCD and HSR methods for intervention design, and propose a novel Approach to Human-centered, Evidence-driven Adaptive Design (AHEAD) framework. AHEAD offers a practical guide for the design of creative, evidence-based, pragmatic solutions to modern healthcare challenges.

Practices to Foster Physician Presence and Connection With Patients in the Clinical Encounter.

Importance: Time constraints, technology, and administrative demands of modern medicine often impede the human connection that is central to clinical care, contributing to physician and patient dissatisfaction. Objective: To identify evidence and narrative-based practices that promote clinician presence, a state of awareness, focus, and attention with the intent to understand patients. Evidence Review: Preliminary practices were derived through a systematic literature review (from January 1997 to August 2017, with a subsequent bridge search to September 2019) of effective interpersonal interventions; observations of primary care encounters in 3 diverse clinics (n = 27 encounters); and qualitative interviews with physicians (n = 10), patients (n = 27), and nonmedical professionals whose occupations involve intense interpersonal interactions (eg, firefighter, chaplain, social worker; n = 30). After evidence synthesis, promising practices were reviewed in a 3-round modified Delphi process by a panel of 14 researchers, clinicians, patients, caregivers, and health system leaders. Panelists rated each practice using 9-point Likert scales (-4 to +4) that reflected the potential effect on patient and clinician experience and feasibility of implementation; after the third round, panelists selected their "top 5" practices from among those with median ratings of at least +2 for all 3 criteria. Final recommendations incorporate elements from all highly rated practices and emphasize the practices with the greatest number of panelist votes. Findings: The systematic literature review (n = 73 studies) and qualitative research activities yielded 31 preliminary practices. Following evidence synthesis, 13 distinct practices were reviewed by the Delphi panel, 8 of which met criteria for inclusion and were combined into a final set of 5 recommendations: (1) prepare with intention (take a moment to prepare and focus before greeting a patient); (2) listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, avoid interruptions); (3) agree on what matters most (find out what the patient cares about and incorporate these priorities into the visit agenda); (4) connect with the patient's story (consider life circumstances that influence the patient's health; acknowledge positive efforts; celebrate successes); and (5) explore emotional cues (notice, name, and validate the patient's emotions). Conclusions and Relevance: This mixed-methods study identified 5 practices that have the potential to enhance physician presence and meaningful connection with patients in the clinical encounter. Evaluation and validation of the outcomes associated with implementing the 5 practices is needed, along with system-level interventions to create a supportive environment for implementation.

Can Patient-Provider Interpersonal Interventions Achieve the Quadruple Aim of Healthcare? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Human connection is at the heart of medical care, but questions remain as to the effectiveness of interpersonal interventions. The purpose of this review was to characterize the associations between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and the quadruple aim outcomes (population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience). METHODS: We sourced data from PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (January 1997-August 2017). Selected studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that examined the association between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and at least one outcome measure of the quadruple aim. Two abstractors independently extracted information about study design, methods, and quality. We characterized evidence related to the objective of the intervention, type and duration of intervention training, target recipient (provider-only vs. provider-patient dyad), and quadruple aim outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-three out of 21,835 studies met the design and outcome inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of research was moderate to high for most included studies; 67% of interventions targeted the provider. Most studies measured impact on patient experience; improvements in experience (e.g., satisfaction, patient-centeredness, reduced unmet needs) often corresponded with a positive impact on other patient health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, depression, adherence). Enhanced interpersonal interactions improved provider well-being, burnout, stress, and confidence in communicating with difficult patients. Roughly a quarter of studies evaluated cost, but the majority reported no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Among studies that measured time in the clinical encounter, intervention effects varied. Interventions with lower demands on provider time and effort were often as effective as those with higher demands. DISCUSSION: Simple, low-demand patient-provider interpersonal interventions may have the potential to improve patient health and patient and provider experience, but there is limited evidence that these interventions influence cost-related outcomes.