Attitudes and practices of ophthalmology doctors in London (UK) on the importance of discussing work as a clinical outcome with patients during consultations: A cross sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited research suggests that non-occupational health doctors rarely discuss occupation with their patients. There is a gap in research regarding the attitudes and practices of doctors towards discussing patient occupation and return to work. The aim of this work was to explore the attitudes of ophthalmology doctors towards work as a clinical outcome and assess the need for occupational health training among participants (doctors). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey among doctors working in ophthalmology in two London teaching hospitals. The survey focused on the attitudes of doctors towards 'work' as a clinical outcome, their practices of asking patients about occupation, their perceived level of competency in this area of clinical practice and the level of training doctors had received in this field. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken and results presented as frequencies and proportions. RESULTS: The response rate was 30/72 (42%). Approximately a quarter (8/30;27%) of doctors 'always' discussed return to work during care planning whilst the majority (25/30;87%) of doctors agreed or strongly agreed that this should always be the case. Over half of the doctors had received no formal OH training on how to discuss or assess the impact of health on work and only 17/30 (57%) considered themselves competent in discussing these work outcomes with patients. Over half agreed that additional training would be useful, with the majority believing that it would be most useful at all stages of medical training. CONCLUSION: We found the majority of ophthalmology doctors regard 'return to work' as an important clinical outcome yet most do not routinely discuss work outcomes with patients to inform care planning. Majority of doctors lack training in how to discuss issues relating to work and would benefit from additional OH training.

A Unified Electronic Tool for CPR and Emergency Treatment Escalation Plans Improves Communication and Early Collaborative Decision Making for Acute Hospital Admissions.

The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death (NCEPOD) report 'Time to Intervene' (2012) stated that in a substantial number of cases, resuscitation is attempted when it was thought a 'do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) decision should have been in place. Early decisions about CPR status and advance planning about limits of care now form part of national recommendations by the UK Resuscitation Council (2016). Treatment escalation plans (TEP) document what level of treatment intervention would be appropriate if a patient were to become acutely unwell and were not previously formally in place at King's College Hospital. A unifying paper based form was successfully piloted in the Acute Medical Unit, introducing the TEP and bringing together decision making around both treatment escalation and CPR status. Subsequently an electronic order-set for CPR status and treatment escalation was launched in April 2015 which led to a highly visible CPR and escalation status banner on the main screen at the top of the patient's electronic record. Ultimately due to further iterations in the electronic process by December 2016, all escalation decisions for acutely admitted patients now have high quality supporting, explanatory documentation with 100% having TEPs in place. There is now widespread multidisciplinary engagement in the process of defining limits of care for acutely admitted medical patients within the first 14 hours of admission and a strategy for rolling this process out across all the divisions of the hospital through our Deteriorating Patient Group (DPG). The collaborative design with acute medical, palliative and intensive care teams and the high visibility provided by the electronic process in the Electronic Patient Record (EPR) has enhanced communication with these teams, patients, nursing staff and the multidisciplinary team by ensuring clarity through a universally understood process about escalation and CPR. Clarity and openness about these discussions have been welcomed by patient focus groups facilitated via our acute medicine patient experience committee. There has been a shift in medical culture where transparency about limits of care has contributed to improving patient safety and quality of care through reducing unnecessary CPR supported by focus groups of staff.