Parents' Perspective on Trainees Performing Invasive Procedures: A Qualitative Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: When obtaining informed permission from parents for invasive procedures, trainees and supervisors often do not disclose information about the trainee's level of experience. The objectives of this study were 3-fold: (1) to assess parents' understanding of both academic medical training and the role of the trainee and the supervisor, (2) to explore parents' preferences about transparency related to a trainee's experience, and (3) to examine parents' willingness to allow trainees to perform invasive procedures. METHODS: This qualitative study involved 23 one-on-one interviews with parents of infants younger than 30 days who had undergone a lumbar puncture. In line with grounded theory, researchers independently coded transcripts and then collectively refined codes and created themes. Data collection and analysis continued until thematic saturation was achieved. In addition, to triangulate the findings, a focus group was conducted with Yale School of Medicine's Community Bioethics Forum. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed 4 primary themes: (1) the invasive nature of a lumbar puncture and the vulnerability of the newborn creates fear in parents, which may be mitigated by improved communication; (2) parents have varying degrees of awareness of the medical training system; (3) most parents expect transparency about provider experience level and trust that a qualified provider will be performing the procedure; and (4) parents prefer an experienced provider to perform a procedure, but supervisor presence may be a qualifying factor for inexperienced providers. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians must find a way to improve transparency when caring for pediatric patients while still developing critical procedural skills.

Emergency Medical Responders and Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Because of the high prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and wandering behavior, emergency medical responders (EMRs) will likely encounter children and adolescents with ASD. The objectives were to describe interactions between EMRs and children and adolescents with ASD, to evaluate EMRs' ability to recognize ASD in a simulated trauma setting, and to determine if EMRs' demographic characteristics affected their interactions with ASD youth. METHODS: A study of 75 videos of a simulated school bus crash was performed. The simulation included an adolescent with ASD portrayed by an actor. Videos were coded based on 5 domains: (1) reassurance attempts by the EMR, (2) quality of the EMR's interactions, (3) EMR's elicitation of information, (4) EMR's interactions with others, and (5) EMR's recognition of a disability. Two clinicians coded the videos independently, and consensus was reached for any areas of disagreement. RESULTS: Of 75 interactions, 27% provided reassurance to the adolescent with ASD, 1% elicited information, 11% asked bystanders for information or assistance, and 35% suggested a disability with 13% considering ASD. No differences across domains were found based on the EMR's sex. Emergency medical responders with greater than or equal to 5 years of experience were significantly more likely to elicit information than those with less than 5 years of experience, and paramedics had significantly higher total performance scores than paramedic students or those with EMT-Basic. CONCLUSIONS: Few EMRs in this study optimally interacted with adolescents with ASD or recognized a disability. These findings suggest a strong need for targeted educational interventions.

Electronic health records: which practices have them, and how are clinicians using them?

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist to estimate the use of electronic health records (EHRs) in ambulatory care practices in the United States. METHODS: We surveyed a stratified random sample of 1829 office practices in Massachusetts in 2005. The one-page survey measured use of health information technology, plans for EHR adoption and perceived barriers to adoption. RESULTS: A total of 847 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 46%. Overall, 18% of office practices reported having an EHR. Primary-care-only and mixed practices reported similar adoption rates (23% and 25%, respectively, P = 0.70). The adoption rate in specialty practices (14%) was lower compared with both primary-care-only (P < 0.01) and mixed (P < 0.05) practices. The number of clinicians in the practice strongly correlated with EHR adoption (P < 0.001), with fewer small practices adopting EHRs. Among practices that have EHRs with laboratory and radiology result retrieval capabilities, at least 87% of practices report that a majority of their clinicians actively use these functionalities, while 74% of practices with electronic decision support report that the majority of clinicians actively use it. Among the practices without an EHR, 13% plan to implement one within the next 12 months, 24% within the next 1-2 years, 11% within the next 3-5 years, and 52% reported having no plans to implement an EHR in the foreseeable future. The most frequently reported barrier to implementation was lack of adequate funding (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, fewer than 1 in 5 medical practices in Massachusetts have an EHR. Even among adopters, though, doctor usage of EHR functions varied considerably by functionality and across practices. Many clinicians are not actively using functionalities that are necessary to improve health care quality and patient safety. Furthermore, among practices that do not have EHRs, more than half have no plan for adoption. Inadequate funding remains an important barrier to EHR adoption in ambulatory care practices in the United States.