Algorithms identifying low-acuity emergency department visits: A review and validation study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize and validate the landscape of algorithms that use International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes to identify low-acuity emergency department (ED) visits. DATA SOURCES: Publicly available ED data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). STUDY DESIGN: We systematically searched for studies that specify algorithms consisting of ICD codes that identify preventable or low-acuity ED visits. We classified ED visits in NHAMCS according to these algorithms and compared agreements using the Jaccard index. We then evaluated the performance of each algorithm using positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity, with the reference group specified using low-acuity composite (LAC) criteria consisting of both triage and clinical components. In sensitivity analyses, we repeated our primary analysis using only triage or only clinical criteria for reference. DATA COLLECTION: We used the 2011-2017 NHAMCS data, totaling 163,576 observations before survey weighting and after dropping observations missing a primary diagnosis. We translated ICD-9 codes (years 2011-2015) to ICD-10 using a standard crosswalk. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 15 papers with an original list of ICD codes used to identify preventable or low-acuity ED presentations. These papers were published between 1992 and 2020, cited an average of 310 (SD 360) times, and included 968 (SD 1175) codes. Pairwise Jaccard similarity indices (0 = no overlap, 1 = perfect congruence) ranged from 0.01 to 0.82, with mean 0.20 (SD 0.13). When validated against the LAC reference group, the algorithms had an average PPV of 0.308 (95% CI [0.253, 0.364]) and sensitivity of 0.183 (95% CI [0.111, 0.256]). Overall, 2.1% of visits identified as low acuity by the algorithms died prehospital or in the ED, or needed surgery, critical care, or cardiac catheterization. CONCLUSIONS: Existing algorithms that identify low-acuity ED visits lack congruence and are imperfect predictors of visit acuity.

Improving Formative Feedback in the Operating Room Setting: Developing and Implementing an Initiative to Improve Feedback Quality and Culture.

PROBLEM: Formative feedback, given in an ongoing fashion during the learning process, is fundamental to clinical education. However, dissatisfaction with formative feedback among residents is common. Difficulties with formative feedback are intensified in the operating room (OR) setting due to fast pace, space limitations, and frequent rotation of residents and attendings. APPROACH: In the anesthesiology and critical care department at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, the authors launched the Feedback Moment initiative from January 2018 to May 2018 in which 24 first-year residents and attendings were given a short series of prompts designed to facilitate regular, high-quality formative feedback. The authors conducted semistructured interviews with residents before and after the initiative to evaluate its impact. OUTCOMES: In baseline interviews, 18 participating residents stressed the importance of formative feedback but described feeling unsure of their performance due to lack of ongoing constructive input from attendings. They felt hesitant to approach attendings for feedback due to a desire not to interrupt OR workflow or appear incompetent. In follow-up interviews, residents described the initiative as helping to normalize constructive formative feedback but difficult to execute regularly due to OR workflow issues and frequent rotation of attendings with varying approaches. NEXT STEPS: Challenges faced by participants in this initiative highlight several considerations for effective OR-based formative feedback. Alternative timings for initiating feedback must be considered in light of the hectic nature of the OR workflow. Residents should be equipped with the skills necessary to adapt to varying practice patterns and frequent rotation between attendings, while attendings should be trained to provide a clear rationale for constructive feedback that allows residents to quickly adapt to practice variation. Finally, establishing clear goals among resident-attending pairs is critical to ensuring that formative feedback given in necessarily brief sessions is focused and productive.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia-e.g., through shared decision-making-are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. METHODS: This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. RESULTS: The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists' attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients' anxiety.

Nephrology in the Academic Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Study of Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between nephrology consultants and intensive care unit (ICU) teams is important in light of the high incidence of acute kidney injury in today's ICUs. Although there is considerable debate about how nephrology consultants and ICU teams should collaborate, communicative dynamics between the 2 parties remain poorly understood. This article describes interactions between nephrology consultants and ICU teams in the academic medical setting. STUDY DESIGN: Focused ethnography using semi-structured interviews and participant observation. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to enroll nephrologists, nephrology fellows, and ICU practitioners across several roles collaborating in 3 ICUs (a medical ICU, a surgical ICU, and a cardiothoracic surgical ICU) of a large urban US academic medical center. Participant observation (150 hours) and semi-structured interviews (35) continued until theoretical saturation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview and fieldnote transcripts were coded in an iterative team-based process. Explanation was developed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: Nephrology consultants and surgical ICU teams exhibited discordant preferences about the aggressiveness of renal replacement therapy based on different understandings of physiology, goals of care, and acuity. Collaborative difficulties resulting from this discordance led to nephrology consultants often serving as dialysis proceduralists rather than diagnosticians in surgical ICUs and to consultants sometimes choosing not to express disagreements about clinical care because of the belief that doing so would not lead to changes in the course of care. LIMITATIONS: Aspects of this single-site study of an academic medical center may not be generalizable to other clinical settings and samples. Surgical team perspectives would provide further detail about nephrology consultation in surgical ICUs. The effects of findings on patient care were not examined. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in approach between internal medicine-trained nephrologists and anesthesia- and surgery-trained intensivists and surgeons led to collaborative difficulties in surgical ICUs. These findings stress the need for medical teamwork research and intervention to address issues stemming from disciplinary siloing rooted in long-term socialization to different disciplinary practices.

Understanding Debriefing: A Qualitative Study of Event Reconstruction at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study sought to characterize the role of debriefing after real critical events among anesthesia residents at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. METHOD: From October 2016 to June 2017 and February to April 2018, the authors conducted 25 semistructured interviews with 24 anesthesia residents after they were involved in 25 unique critical events. Interviews focused on the experience of the event and the interactions that occurred thereafter. A codebook was generated through annotation, then used by 3 researchers in an iterative process to code interview transcripts. An explanatory model was developed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: In the aftermath of events, residents underwent a multistage process by which the nature of critical events and the role of residents in them were continuously reconstructed. Debriefing-if it occurred-was 1 stage in this process, which also included stages of internal dialogue, event documentation, and lessons learned. Negotiated in each stage were residents' culpability, reputation, and the appropriateness of their affective response to events. CONCLUSIONS: Debriefing is one of several stages of interaction that occur after a critical event; all stages play a role in shaping how the event is interpreted and remembered. Because of its dynamic role in constituting the nature of events and residents' role in them, debriefing can be a high-stakes interaction for residents, which can contribute to their reluctance to engage in it. The function and quality of debriefing can be assessed in more insightful fashion by understanding its relation to the other stages of event reconstruction.

Failure to Debrief after Critical Events in Anesthesia Is Associated with Failures in Communication during the Event.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation. WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: Failure to debrief after critical events is common among anesthesia trainees and likely anesthesia teams. Communication breakdowns are associated with a high rate of the failure to debrief. BACKGROUND: Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation. The authors' objective was to understand barriers to debriefing, characterize quantifiable patterns and qualitative themes, and learn potential solutions through a mixed-methods study of actual critical events experienced by anesthesia personnel. METHODS: At a large academic medical center, anesthesiology residents and a small number of attending anesthesiologists were audited and/or interviewed for the occurrence and patterns of debriefing after critical events during their recent shift, including operating room crises and disruptive behavior. Patterns of the events, including event locations and event types, were quantified. A comparison was done of the proportion of cases debriefed based on whether the event contained a critical communication breakdown. Qualitative analysis, using an abductive approach, was performed on the interviews to add insight to quantitative findings. RESULTS: During a 1-yr period, 89 critical events were identified. The overall debriefing rate was 49% (44 of 89). Nearly half of events occurred outside the operating room. Events included crisis events (e.g., cardiac arrest, difficult airway requiring an urgent surgical airway), disruptive behavior, and critical communication breakdowns. Events containing critical communication breakdowns were strongly associated with not being debriefed (64.4% [29 of 45] not debriefed in events with a communication breakdown vs. 36.4% [16 of 44] not debriefed in cases without a communication breakdown; P = 0.008). Interview responses qualitatively demonstrated that lapses in communication were associated with enduring confusion that could inhibit or shape the content of discussions between involved providers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the value of proximal debriefing to reducing provider burnout and improving wellness and learning, failure to debrief after critical events can be common among anesthesia trainees and perhaps anesthesia teams. Modifiable interpersonal factors, such as communication breakdowns, were associated with the failure to debrief.

How does training in anesthesia residency shape residents' approaches to patient care handoffs? A single-center qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Handoffs are a complex procedure whose success relies on mutual discussion rather than simple information transfer. Particularly among trainees, handoffs present major opportunities for medical error. Previous research has explored best practices and pitfalls in general handoff education but has not discussed barriers specific to anesthesiology residents. This study characterizes the experiences of residents in anesthesiology as they learn handoff technique in order to inform strategies for teaching this important component of perioperative care. METHODS: In 2016, we conducted a semi-structured interview study of 30 anesthesia residents across all three postgraduate years at a major academic hospital. Interviews were coded by two coders using a grounded theory approach and an iterative process designed to enhance reliability and validity. RESULTS: Residents cited lack of consistency as a major impediment to proper handoff education. They found the impact of lectures and written materials to be limited. The level of guidance and direction they received from one-to-one attendings was described as highly variable. Residents' comfort in executing handoffs was heavily dependent on location and situation. They felt that coordination among the parties involved in the handoff was difficult to achieve, causing confusion about the importance of handoffs as well as proper protocol. Finally, residents offered opinions on when handoff education should occur during the residency and had several recommendations for its improving, including standardization of key handoff topics. CONCLUSIONS: In a single center study of anesthesiology resident handoff education, residents exhibited confusion related to a perceived disconnect between the stated importance of effective handoffs and a lack of consensus on proper handoff technique. Standardization of curriculum and framing expectations has the potential to enhance resident handoff training in academic anesthesia departments.