Impact of heartfulness meditation practice compared to the gratitude practices on wellbeing and work engagement among healthcare professionals: Randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether Heartfulness meditation practice, compared to Gratitude practice, leads to measurable changes in mental wellbeing among healthcare providers across the US. METHOD: Participants were randomly assigned to one of the following 6-week interventions: the trainer-guided virtual Heartfulness meditation program or the podcast-based self-guided gratitude practice group. The Professional Quality of Life Scale-5 (ProQOL-5) was used to determine Compassion Satisfaction (CS) and risk for Burnout (BO) and secondary traumatic stress (STS). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was used to assess vigor, dedication, and absorption at work. Outcomes were collected at baseline and the end of the study period. Qualitative questions regarding the experience of learning and practicing were also offered at the end of the six weeks. RESULTS: The majority of participants were nurses (50%), followed by allied healthcare professionals (37%) and physicians (13%) (N = 83). There was a general trend towards increases in CS in the Heartfulness group compared to the gratitude group. However, this was not statistically significant. Strong evidence suggests there was a significant improvement in BO for the Heartfulness group between Week 0 and Week 6 (p = 0.002), as well as STS (p = 0.0004) and vigor (p = 0.0392). Qualitative data analysis revealed that the subjects in the Heartfulness arm reported improved sleep and decreased reactivity to stress. Subjects in the gratitude arm reported improved mood and favorable results using gratitude practices at home with family members. CONCLUSION: In our study, Heartfulness meditation practice was associated with a significant improvement in burnout and vigor at work, with a trend towards compassion satisfaction after six weeks compared with gratitude practices. Qualitative analysis indicates the benefits of both Heartfulness and Gratitude practices. Further randomized trials with a larger sample size are needed to explore these science-based practices for the wellbeing of healthcare workers.

Quality evaluation of the usefulness of an emergency department fall risk assessment tool.

INTRODUCTION: Falls that occur within a hospital setting are difficult to predict, however, are preventable adverse events with the potential to negatively impact patient care. Falls have the potential to cause serious or fatal injuries and may increase patient morbidity. Many hospitals utilize fall "predictor tools" to categorize a patient's fall risk, however, these tools are primarily studied within in-patient units. The emergency department (ED) presents a unique environment with a distinct patient population and demographic. The Memorial Emergency Department Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MEDFRAT) has shown to be effective with predicting a patient's fall risk in the ED. This IRB-approved study aims to assess the predictive validity of the MEDFRAT by evaluating the sensitivity and specificity for predicting a patient's fall risk in an emergency department at a level 1 trauma center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using an electronic medical record (EMR) for patients who met study inclusion criteria at a level 1 trauma center ED. Extracted data includes MEDFRAT components, demographic information, and data from the Moving Safely Risk Assessment (MSRA) Tool, our institution's current fall assessment tool. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the best cutoff for identifying any fall risk. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative LR (LR-), with 95% CIs were then calculated for the cutoff value determined from the ROC curve. To compare overall tool performance, the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were determined and compared with a z-test. RESULTS: The MEDFRAT had a significantly higher sensitivity compared to the MSRA (83.1% vs. 66.1%, p = 0.002), while the MSRA had a significantly higher specificity (84.5% vs. 69.0%, p = 0.012). For identifying any level of fall risk, ROC curve analysis showed that the cutoff providing the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for the MEDFRAT was a score of ≥1. Additionally, area under the curve was determined for the MEDFRAT and MSRA (0.817 vs. 0.737). CONCLUSION: This study confirms the validity of the MEDFRAT as an acceptable tool to predict in-hospital falls in a level 1 trauma center ED. Accurate identification of patients at a high risk of falling is critical for decreasing healthcare costs and improving health outcomes and patient safety.