How Healthcare Providers Decide on a Referral Location in Telephone Triage: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of patients that present to the emergency department (ED) do so after contact with a healthcare professional. Many of these patients could be effectively managed in non-ED ambulatory settings. Aligning patients with safe and appropriate outpatient care has the potential to improve ED overcrowding, patient experience, outcomes, and costs. Little is understood about how healthcare providers approach triage decision-making and what factors influence their choices. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how providers think about patient triage, and what factors influence their decision-making when triaging patient calls. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey-based study in which participants make triage decisions for hypothetical clinical scenarios. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers in the specialties of internal medicine, family medicine, or emergency medicine within a large integrated healthcare system in the Southeast. MAIN MEASURES: Differences in individual training and practice characteristics were used to compare observed differences in triage outcomes. Free-response data were evaluated to identify themes and factors affecting triage decisions. KEY RESULTS: Out of 72 total participants, substantial variability in triage decision-making was observed among all patient cases. Attending physicians triaged 1.4 fewer cases to ED care compared with resident physicians (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.62-2.1). Academic attendings demonstrated a trend toward fewer cases to ED care compared with community attendings (0.61, p = 0.188, 95% CI - 0.31-1.5). Qualitative data highlighted the complex considerations in provider triage and led to the development of a novel conceptual model to describe the cognitive triage process and the main influencing factors. CONCLUSIONS: Triage decision-making for healthcare providers is influenced by many factors related to clinical resources, care coordination, patient factors, and clinician factors. The complex considerations involved yield variability in triage decisions that is largely unexplained by descriptive physician factors.

Implementation of a "Best Self" Exercise to Decrease Imposter Phenomenon in Residents.

Background Imposter phenomenon (IP) is common in medicine. An intervention from the business world, the Reflected Best Self Exercise (RBSE), in which an individual elicits stories of themselves at their best, has not been studied in medical residents. Objective To determine the feasibility of implementing the RBSE and its potential for reducing IP in residents. Methods All incoming internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics interns in the 2022-2023 academic year at a single institution were invited to complete the RBSE. Participants elicited stories from contacts prior to beginning residency and received their stories during intern orientation in a 1-hour session led by one author with no prior training. Cost and time requirements were assessed. IP was measured via the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS) at baseline, 1 month, and 6 months following the RBSE. Informal feedback on the RBSE was collected via surveys at 1 month and 6 months. Results Nineteen of 35 interns (54.3%) completed the RBSE. It cost $75 per participant, for a total cost of $1,425. Twenty-eight of 35 (80%) completed the baseline CIPS, with scores similar between participants and nonparticipants (64.9 vs 68.9). CIPS scores were lower in participants at 1 month (57.6 vs 69.6) and 6 months (55.6 vs 64.5) but did not meet statistical significance. Survey feedback from participants suggested the intervention was beneficial. Conclusions Implementing the RBSE in residents was feasible with reasonable cost and time commitment. It appeared highly acceptable to residents, with some promise of effects on an IP scale.

Sepsis, the Administration of IV Fluids, and Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Analysis-SAIFR Study.

BACKGROUND: Although resuscitation with IV fluids is the cornerstone of sepsis management, consensus regarding their association with improvement in clinical outcomes is lacking. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a difference in the incidence of respiratory failure in patients with sepsis who received guideline-recommended initial IV fluid bolus of 30 mL/kg or more conservative resuscitation of less than 30 mL/kg? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data conducted at an academic medical center in Omaha, Nebraska. We abstracted data from 214 patients with sepsis admitted to a single academic medical center between June 2017 and June 2018. Patients were stratified by receipt of guideline-recommended fluid bolus. The primary outcome was respiratory failure defined as an increase in oxygen flow rate or more intense oxygenation and ventilation support; oxygen requirement and volume were measured at admission, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and at discharge. Subgroup analyses were conducted in high-risk patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) as well as those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESULTS: A total of 62 patients (29.0%) received appropriate bolus treatment. The overall rate of respiratory failure was not statistically different between patients who received appropriate bolus or did not (40.3% vs 36.8%; P = .634). Likewise, no differences were observed in time to respiratory failure (P = .645) or risk of respiratory failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7]; P = .774). Results were similar within the high-risk CHF and CKD subgroups. INTERPRETATION: In this single-center retrospective study, we found that by broadly defining respiratory failure as an increase in oxygen requirements, a conservative initial IV fluid resuscitation strategy did not correlate with decreased rates of hypoxemic respiratory failure.