Laypeople's (Mis)Understanding of Common Medical Acronyms.

OBJECTIVES: Abbreviations are often used in medicine yet may be a source of confusion for patients and their families. We aimed to determine the general public's understanding of commonly used medical acronyms. METHODS: For this cross-sectional study, we surveyed state fair visitors regarding their understanding of 5 common medical acronyms. An electronic survey was administered to a volunteer sample of adults who spoke and read English and who had never trained to work in medicine or nursing. Free-text responses were coded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect by 2 independent researchers, adding a third researcher if consensus was not reached. Analysis methods included descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: We recruited 204 volunteers (55% female; mean age 43 years; 67% had a bachelor's degree or higher). ED (emergency department) was correctly defined by 32%, PCP (primary care provider/physician) by 18%, CBC (complete blood count) by 14%, and PRN (as needed) and NPO (nothing by mouth) by 13% each. Female gender was associated with higher odds of correctly understanding NPO (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-8.21; P = .02); older age was associated with higher odds of understanding PRN (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.05; P = .04). Education level was not found to correlate significantly with successful explanation of any tested acronym. CONCLUSIONS: Medical acronyms are a predictable source of miscommunication. In this large cross-sectional study, none of the acronyms evaluated was understood correctly by more than one-third of adults. Clinicians should avoid using acronyms with patients and families to minimize confusion.

"What's My Line?": Pseudo-Improvised Teaching When the Clinical Teaching Script Is Blank.

ABSTRACT: Commitment to clinical education often requires significant forethought and attention to provide a comprehensive learning experience for trainees. In these settings, teaching is typically time-limited, prompted by a clinical scenario, and requires preparation. However, it is not uncommon for teachers to have insufficient time to prepare or to encounter a clinical scenario in which they have not yet developed a teaching script.In this article, the authors share 5 categories of teaching techniques that instructors can pull from regardless of the prompt or busyness of the clinical setting and that are ideal for using when the teaching script is "blank." They call this approach of having scenario-independent teaching techniques ready to be applied with minimal preparation, "pseudo-improvised teaching."Drawing from the literature, their own experience, and borrowing from improvisational theater, the authors share a toolkit of pseudo-improvised teaching techniques spanning from pathophysiology to clinical skills to work-life integration. In addition to highlighting several techniques, they describe models of meta-structure for teaching in which the use of themes for the day (i.e., longitudinal themes) and routines can ease some of the cognitive load felt by both learners and educators.

Jargon Be Gone - Patient Preference in Doctor Communication.

While it has been shown that healthcare providers often use medical jargon, less is known about how patients prefer their clinicians communicate. This mixed-methods study aimed to better understand the general public's preference in healthcare communication. A volunteer cohort of 205 adult attendees at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair was presented a survey with two scenarios at a doctor's office sharing the same information: one using medical terminology and one using simpler, jargon-free language. Survey participants were asked which doctor they preferred, to describe each doctor, and to explain why they believe that doctors may use medical terminology. Common descriptive themes for the jargon-using doctor included that this doctor caused confusion, was too technical, and was uncaring, while the doctor who spoke without jargon was perceived as a good communicator, caring/empathetic, and approachable. Respondents perceived a range of reasons why doctors use jargon, from not recognizing they are using words that are not understood to trying to make themselves feel more important. Overall, 91% of survey respondents preferred the doctor who communicated without medical jargon.

Prolonged Elevations of Factor VIII and von Willebrand Factor Antigen After Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children.

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) is a late systemic inflammatory response to a recent mild or asymptomatic coronavirus disease of 2019 infection. The pathophysiology is incompletely understood but it often features significant coagulopathy along with cardiac and endothelial dysfunction. Endothelial inflammation has been primarily described in acute coronavirus disease of 2019 infection, with less characterization in MIS-C. Here we describe novel findings of nearly universal severe and prolonged factor VIII (FVIII) and von Willebrand factor antigen elevations in an institutional cohort of patients with MIS-C ages younger than or 21 years old (N=31). All patients had elevated acute phase reactants and D-dimer at presentation and met published criteria for MIS-C. FVIII was high at presentation in 97% of patients but continued to rise during the ensuing weeks of treatment to a mean 429%, peaking on median day 17 of illness as an outpatient. FVIII levels were >600% in multiple patients. von Willebrand factor antigen was measured less frequently but showed similar trends. These escalations occurred amidst resolving cardiac dysfunction and acute phase reactant normalization and despite patients receiving multimodal anti-inflammatory treatments and aspirin and enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis. No thrombotic events occurred. Endothelial dysfunction represented by very elevated FVIII levels may persist longer than other acute phase reactants may reflect.

Accuracy in Patient Understanding of Common Medical Phrases.

Importance: Despite acknowledging that medical jargon should be avoided, health care practitioners frequently use it when communicating with patients. Objective: To characterize the understanding of common medical jargon terms by surveying a cross section of the general public and studying phrases that have established meanings in regular usage but different meanings in a medical context (eg, negative and positive test results). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, participants indicated their understanding of phrases that may have different meanings in medicine than in colloquial English via a mix of short answer and multiple choice questions. Several questions included paired phrases to assess for differences in understanding with or without jargon. Volunteers were recruited at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair near St Paul, Minnesota. An electronic survey was given to a volunteer sample of 215 adults (>18 years) who did not work or train to work in the medical field and spoke and read English. Exposures: Completing a written or verbal survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was an accurate understanding of the medical terminology. Free-text responses were coded by 2 researchers for comprehension. Secondary outcomes looked for associations between volunteer demographics and understanding. Results: The 215 respondents (135 [63%] female; mean [SD] age, 42 [17] years) demonstrated a varied ability to interpret medical jargon phrases. For example, most participants (207 [96%]) knew that negative cancer screening results meant they did not have cancer, but fewer participants (143 [79%]) knew that the phrase "your tumor is progressing" was bad news, or that positive lymph nodes meant the cancer had spread (170 [67%]). While most (171 [80%]) recognized that an unremarkable chest radiography was good news, only 44 participants (21%) correctly understood that a clinician saying their radiography was impressive was generally bad news. In each of the paired phrases comparing jargon vs nonjargon approaches, the nonjargon phrase was understood significantly better (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that several common phrases are misunderstood when used in a medical setting, with the interpreted meaning frequently the exact opposite of what is intended.

What's in a name? Laypeople's understanding of medical roles and titles.

BACKGROUND: Physicians regularly use jargon in patient communication, which can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. OBJECTIVE: To assess the general public's understanding of names and roles of medical specialties and job seniority titles. DESIGNS: Volunteer participants completed an electronic survey, filling-in-the-blanks for 14 medical specialties (e.g., "pediatricians are doctors who take care of _____"), and ranked physician titles in order of experience (medical student, intern, senior resident, fellow, attending). SETTING: The 2021 Minnesota State Fair. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers >18 years old without medical or nursing training. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We summarized responses with descriptive statistics. Two researchers coded open-ended answers as correct, partially correct, or incorrect, with a third researcher for coding discrepancies. RESULTS: Two hundred and four participants completed the survey (55% female; mean age 43; 67% of respondents with a bachelor's degree or higher). Of 14 medical specialties listed on the survey, respondents most accurately identified dermatologists (94%) and cardiologists (93%). Six specialties were understood by less than half of the respondents: neonatologists (48%), pulmonologists (43%), hospitalists (31%), intensivists (29%), internists (21%), and nephrologists (20%). Twelve percent of participants correctly identified medical roles in rank order. Most participants (74%) correctly identified medical students as the least experienced. Senior residents were most often identified as the most experienced (44%), with just 27% of respondents correctly placing the attending there. We conclude that medical professionals should recognize that titles are a common source of misunderstanding among the general public and should describe their role when introducing themselves to minimize confusion.

Improving Communication by Standardizing Pediatric Rapid Response Team Documentation.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response teams (RRTs) have been used by multiple hospital systems to enhance patient care and safety. However, processes to document rapid response events (RRE) are often varied among providers and teams, which can lead to suboptimal communication of recommendations to both the primary medical team and family. METHODS: A preintervention chart review was conducted from January-March 2018 and revealed suboptimal baseline documentation following RREs. A literature review and survey of RRT team members led to the creation of a standardized document with an Epic SmartPhrase which included six key elements of RRE documentation: physical examination, intervention performed, response to intervention, plan of care, communication with care team, and communication with family. A postintervention chart review was completed from April-June 2019 to assess improvements in documentation with the use of this SmartPhrase. RESULTS: There were 23 RRE activations in the postintervention period, of which 60.8% were due to respiratory distress. The documentation of the six key elements improved (p < .05) after SmartPhrase creation and serial educational interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized RRE documentation of six key elements significantly improved with the implementation of an Epic SmartPhrase. Improved quality of documentation enhances communication between team members and can contribute to safer patient care.

Say What? Quantifying and Classifying Jargon Use During Inpatient Rounds.

BACKGROUND: Although plain language is recognized as essential for effective communication, research reveals that medical providers regularly use jargon terminology that may be misunderstood by patients. Little is known, however, about the types and frequency of jargon used in the pediatric inpatient setting. We aimed to quantify jargon use by medical team members during inpatient family-centered rounds (FCRs) and to identify the most common categories of jargon used. METHODS: One of 3 trained medical students audited FCRs on a general pediatric service once weekly for 12 weeks, recording and categorizing jargon used with a published classification framework. Jargon usage was classified by category and quantified by using descriptive statistics. Rates were calculated by patient encounter and per minute. Feedback was provided to rounding teams after each observation. RESULTS: During 70 observed FCR patient encounters, there were a total of 443 jargon words or phrases spoken, of which 309 (70%) were not explicitly defined to the patient or family by the health care provider team. The mean number of undefined jargon words or phrases used per patient was 4.3 (±1.7), with a mean of 0.4 (±0.1) uses of undefined jargon per minute. The most common categories of undefined jargon used include technical terminology (eg, bronchiolitis), medical vernacular (eg, cultures), and abbreviations and acronyms (eg, NPO for "nothing by mouth") at 34%, 30%, and 17%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Undefined medical jargon was used frequently by health care providers during pediatric FCRs. We found it was feasible to measure provider jargon use and to use a jargon classification scheme to provide real-time, concrete feedback.

ED RAPID: A Novel Children's Hospital Direct Admission Process Utilizing the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Direct hospital admission of children without evaluation in the emergency department (ED) is common, but few guidelines exist to maximize safety by assessing patient stability. This report describes a novel approach to support patient safety. METHODS: An interdisciplinary children's hospital team developed a brief ED-based evaluation process called the ED Rapid Assessment of Patients Intended for Inpatient Disposition (ED RAPID). It entails a brief evaluation of vital signs and clinical stability by the ED attending physician and nurse. Children deemed stable are admitted to inpatient wards, whereas those requiring immediate intervention undergo full ED evaluation and disposition. We assessed outcomes for all children evaluated through this process from March 2013 through February 2015. RESULTS: During the study period, we identified 715 patients undergoing ED RAPID evaluation. Of these, we directly admitted 691 (96.4%) to the hospital ward after ED RAPID evaluation; median ED treatment time was 4.0 minutes. We transitioned 24 (3.4%) to full ED evaluation, 14 (2.0%) because a ward bed was unavailable, and 10 (1.4%) for clinical reasons identified in the evaluation. We admitted four of the 10 stopped (40% of stops, 0.6% of total) to an intensive care unit, and 6 (60% of stops, 0.8% of total) to the hospital ward after ED care. Eight children (1.1%) admitted to the hospital ward after ED RAPID evaluation required a transfer to an intensive care unit within 12 hours. CONCLUSION: The ED RAPID evaluation process for children directly admitted to the hospital was feasible and effective in this setting.

Prescribing Video-Based Patient Education in the Hospital Setting: Can Bedside Breastfeeding Videos Affect Exclusive Breastfeeding at Postpartum Discharge?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the impact of a standardized bundle of educational videos delivered via the bedside television to postpartum mothers on exclusive breastfeeding rates. Despite the growing use of videos for hospital discharge education, there is a paucity of literature evaluating their effectiveness. METHODS: In November 2015, we began ordering 4 externally produced, peer-reviewed breastfeeding education videos for all postpartum mothers to view via their bedside televisions. Mothers could choose whether to watch the videos, and if they did, this was automatically documented in the electronic health record. We then performed a retrospective chart review generating a data set focusing on newborns who were healthy, term, and appropriate for gestational age, born in the year pre- and postintervention, and compared exclusive breastfeeding rates at the time of discharge among both groups. RESULTS: Our data set included 3115 newborns (1467 pre- and 1648 postintervention). In the postintervention year, the exclusive breastfeeding rate at discharge was 69.5% vs 68.4% preintervention (P value: .80). Most mothers (81.3%; 1339) watched all 4 videos, and 308 mothers (18.7%) watched none. The mothers who watched all 4 videos were more likely to breastfeed exclusively (72.7% vs 55.3%) and less likely to exclusively formula feed than the mothers who watched none (1.1% vs 19.8%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no change in exclusive breastfeeding rates pre- versus post-video education intervention. However, most mothers watched all 4 videos, and those who did were significantly more likely to engage in any breastfeeding (98.9%) compared with those who watched none (80.2%) during the postpartum hospitalization.

The Admission Conference Call: A Novel Approach to Optimizing Pediatric Emergency Department to Admitting Floor Communication.

Optimizing information sharing at transfer of care between teams is an important target for the improvement of patient safety. Traditional emergency department (ED)-to-floor handoffs do not support a shared mental model between physicians, residents, and nurses. This report describes and evaluates acceptance of a novel process for coordinating physician and nursing handoff calls for patients being admitted to an inpatient floor from a children's hospital ED. METHODS: The Admission Conference Call (ACC) is a single conference call including attendings, residents, and nurses from the ED and inpatient teams, currently used for 29.8% of admissions from one ED. Physicians and nurses were surveyed to assess perception of its effects on patient care. RESULTS: A total of 653 ACCs were conducted during 2017. The survey was completed by 43 nurses and 89 physicians. Mean Likert scale findings were in favor of the process supporting safe patient care (4.5/5; standard deviation [SD], 0.6); none said it increased risk. Ratings favored the process improving interdisciplinary alignment (4.0/5; SD, 0.8) and the benefits outweighing the inconvenience (3.9/5; SD, 0.9). Respondents were neutral on the effect of the ACC on throughput time (3.0/5; SD, 1.0). Logistical concerns were expressed; mean satisfaction was 6.8/10 (SD, 2.1). Free text comments varied widely, from pride to frustration. CONCLUSION: The Admission Conference Call is a well-accepted alternative to a traditional multiple call process. Most participants believe it supports safe patient care. Further research is necessary to confirm measurable effects on patient outcomes, but this project provides encouragement to institutions considering innovative approaches.

Hospital-Based Quality Measures for Pediatric Mental Health Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with a primary mental health condition account for nearly 10% of pediatric hospitalizations nationally, but little is known about the quality of care provided for them in hospital settings. Our objective was to develop and test medical record-based measures used to assess quality of pediatric mental health care in the emergency department (ED) and inpatient settings. METHODS: We drafted an evidence-based set of pediatric mental health care quality measures for the ED and inpatient settings. We used the modified Delphi method to prioritize measures; 2 ED and 6 inpatient measures were operationalized and field-tested in 2 community and 3 children's hospitals. Eligible patients were 5 to 19 years old and diagnosed with psychosis, suicidality, or substance use from January 2012 to December 2013. We used bivariate and multivariate models to examine measure performance by patient characteristics and by hospital. RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventeen records were abstracted with primary diagnoses of suicidality (n = 446), psychosis (n = 321), and substance use (n = 50). Performance varied across measures. Among patients with suicidality, male patients (adjusted odds ratio: 0.27, P < .001) and African American patients (adjusted odds ratio: 0.31, P = .02) were less likely to have documentation of caregiver counseling on lethal means restriction. Among admitted suicidal patients, 27% had documentation of communication with an outside provider, with variation across hospitals (0%-38%; P < .001). There was low overall performance on screening for comorbid substance abuse in ED patients with psychosis (mean: 30.3). CONCLUSIONS: These new pediatric mental health care quality measures were used to identify sex and race disparities and substantial hospital variation. These measures may be useful for assessing and improving hospital-based pediatric mental health care quality.

Quality Measures to Assess Care Transitions for Hospitalized Children.

BACKGROUND: Transitions between sites of care are inherent to all hospitalizations, yet we lack pediatric-specific transitions-of-care quality measures. We describe the development and validation of new transitions-of-care quality measures obtained from medical record data. METHODS: After an evidence review, a multistakeholder panel prioritized quality measures by using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles modified Delphi method. Three measures were endorsed, operationalized, and field-tested at 3 children's hospitals and 2 community hospitals: quality of hospital-to-home transition record content, timeliness of discharge communication between inpatient and outpatient providers, and ICU-to-floor transition note quality. Summary scores were calculated on a scale from 0 to 100; higher scores indicated better quality. We examined between-hospital variation in scores, associations of hospital-to-home transition quality scores with readmission and emergency department return visit rates, and associations of ICU-to-floor transition quality scores with ICU readmission and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 927 charts from 5 hospitals were reviewed. Mean quality scores were 65.5 (SD 18.1) for the hospital-to-home transition record measure, 33.3 (SD 47.1) for the discharge communication measure, and 64.9 (SD 47.1) for the ICU-to-floor transition measure. The mean adjusted hospital-to-home transition summary score was 61.2 (SD 17.1), with significant variation in scores between hospitals (P < .001). Hospital-to-home transition quality scores were not associated with readmissions or emergency department return visits. ICU-to-floor transition note quality scores were not associated with ICU readmissions or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: These quality measures were feasible to implement in diverse settings and varied across hospitals. The development of these measures is an important step toward standardized evaluation of the quality of pediatric transitional care.