Actual clinical leadership: a shadowing study of charge nurses and doctors on-call in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The provision of safe, high quality healthcare in the Emergency Department (ED) requires frontline healthcare personnel with sufficient competence in clinical leadership. However, healthcare education curriculum infrequently features learning about clinical leadership, and there is an absence of experienced doctors and nurses as role models in EDs for younger and less experienced doctors and nurses. The purpose of this study was to explore the activities performed by clinical leaders and to identify similarities and differences between the activities performed by charge nurses and those performed by doctors on-call in the Emergency Department after completion of a Clinical Leadership course. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory design was chosen. Nine clinical leaders in the ED were shadowed. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis. RESULTS: The analysis revealed seven themes: receiving an overview of the team and patients and planning the shift; ensuring resources; monitoring and ensuring appropriate patient flow; monitoring and securing information flow; securing patient care and treatment; securing and assuring the quality of diagnosis and treatment of patient; and securing the prioritization of patients. The last two themes were exclusive to doctors on-call, while the theme "securing patient care and treatment" was exclusive to charge nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Charge nurses and doctors on-call perform multitasking and complement each other as clinical leaders in the ED. The findings in this study provide new insights into how clinical leadership is performed by charge nurses and doctors on-call in the ED, but also the similarities and differences that exist in clinical leadership performance between the two professions. Clinical leadership is necessary to the provision of safe, high quality care and treatment for patients with acute health needs, as well as the coordination of healthcare services in the ED. More evaluation studies of this Clinical Leadership course would be valuable.

Interprofessional trust in emergency department - as experienced by nurses in charge and doctors on call.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe that which characterises interprofessional trust in a Norwegian emergency department, as expressed by nurses in charge and doctors on call. BACKGROUND: Interprofessional trust requires knowledge of and skills in interprofessional collaboration. It also requires established trust in fellow collaborators, as well as in the work environment and in the more comprehensive system in which the work is conducted. Nurses in charge and doctors on call who collaborate in the context of an emergency department do so under changing conditions in terms of staff composition and work load. DESIGN: The study was designed in a qualitative, inductive and sequential manner. METHOD: Data were collected from September-November 2013 through four focus group interviews and was analysed by means of qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The data revealed two themes that were characteristic of interprofessional trust: 'having relational knowledge' and 'being part of a context'. Together, the themes can be understood as equally important to contextual collaboration. A model of interprofessional trust between an individual level and system level was developed from the results. CONCLUSION: The study indicates that interprofessional trust is a changeable phenomenon that has great impact on the possibility for development at an individual level and at a more abstract system level. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interprofessional trust can be improved by focusing on trust-building activities between staff at the individual level and between staff and organisation at the system level. Supportive activities such as continuous interprofessional education are suggested as valuable to the development and maintenance of trust.

Conocimiento de escalas de evaluación inicial de accidente cerebrovascular por médicos de guardia en tres provincias argentinas / Awareness of initial stoke evaluation scales among emergency room physicians in three argentinian provinces

Introducción: las enfermedades cardiovasculares constituyeron en 2004 la causa más frecuente de muerte en Argentina,duplicando a las neoplasias malignas en su conjunto. El accidente cerebrovascular (ACV) representó el7,5% del total de muertes. La Asociación Americana del Corazón propone el empleo de la escala prehospitalaria delaccidente cerebrovascular de Cincinnati (CPSS) y la escala de evaluación prehospitalaria del ACV de Los Angeles(LAPSS) para evaluar sujetos con posible ACV.Objetivos: evaluar el conocimiento de estas escalas por médicos de guardia, y su opinión respecto al valor que ellaspodrían tener sobre su práctica.Material y método: estudio prospectivo y observacional encuestando 569 médicos durante diciembre de 2008 amarzo 2009 en distintas ciudades de las provincias de Santa Fe, Entre Ríos y Chaco, Argentina.Resultados: un 32,3% manifestó conocer las escalas, pero solamente 8,4% de ellos pudo enumerar los puntos deCPSS, un 1,9% pudo hacerlo con LAPSS y el 0,7% ambas. Quienes recordaban una o ambas escalas manifestaronsentirse más seguros al evaluar un posible ACV (p= 0,02); ninguno de los que recordaban LAPSS manifestó sentirseinseguro. Quienes se sentían menos seguros fueron los que atribuyeron más beneficios a las escalas (p= 0,0003).Los no especialistas las consideraron más útiles (p= 0,005). El 89% refirió que las escalas beneficiarían su práctica.Conclusiones: ambas escalas fueron consideradas de valor por médicos de guardia para evaluar pacientes con posibleACV. Enfatizamos la necesidad de una mayor difusión de ellas a fin de mejorar el abordaje inicial de estos pacientes.(AU)

Introduction: In 2004, the most frequent cause of death in Argentina was cardiovascular disease, which almost duplicated all types of malignant neoplasm. Cerebrovascular disease caused 7.5% of total deaths. The American Heart Association proposes the use of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) and Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Screen (LAPSS) toevaluate patients with possible cerebrovascular disease. Objective: To evaluate the awareness of these scales knowledge among doctors working in emergency rooms and prehospitalconsultation, and what are their opinions about the usefulness of the scales.Material and method: Observational and prospective survey of 569 doctors from the Argentinian provinces of Santa Fe,Entre Rios, and Chaco from December 2008 to March 2009. Results: One third (32.3%) of doctors included in the mentioned survey declared to know the scales, although only 8.4% of them could enumerate CPSS points, 1.9% could enumerate LAPSS points and 0.7% remembered both CPSS andLAPSS points. Those who remembered either one or both scales felt safer evaluating a possible stroke (p= 0.02) while and no doctor who remembered LAPSS felt doubtful. Those who felt more hesitant where the doctors who adscribed more benefits to the scales (p= 0.0003). Non specialists considered scales more useful (p= 0.005). Overall, 89% of doctors admitted scales would benefit their practice. Conclusion: Both scales were highly valued by doctors on call in order to diagnose patients with possible stroke. We stress the need of a bigger widespread coverage of these scales in order to improve the initial approach for managing these patients.(AU)

Conocimiento de escalas de evaluación inicial de accidente cerebrovascular por médicos de guardia en tres provincias argentinas / Awareness of initial stoke evaluation scales among emergency room physicians in three argentinian provinces

Introducción: las enfermedades cardiovasculares constituyeron en 2004 la causa más frecuente de muerte en Argentina,duplicando a las neoplasias malignas en su conjunto. El accidente cerebrovascular (ACV) representó el7,5% del total de muertes. La Asociación Americana del Corazón propone el empleo de la escala prehospitalaria delaccidente cerebrovascular de Cincinnati (CPSS) y la escala de evaluación prehospitalaria del ACV de Los Ángeles(LAPSS) para evaluar sujetos con posible ACV.Objetivos: evaluar el conocimiento de estas escalas por médicos de guardia, y su opinión respecto al valor que ellaspodrían tener sobre su práctica.Material y método: estudio prospectivo y observacional encuestando 569 médicos durante diciembre de 2008 amarzo 2009 en distintas ciudades de las provincias de Santa Fe, Entre Ríos y Chaco, Argentina.Resultados: un 32,3% manifestó conocer las escalas, pero solamente 8,4% de ellos pudo enumerar los puntos deCPSS, un 1,9% pudo hacerlo con LAPSS y el 0,7% ambas. Quienes recordaban una o ambas escalas manifestaronsentirse más seguros al evaluar un posible ACV (p= 0,02); ninguno de los que recordaban LAPSS manifestó sentirseinseguro. Quienes se sentían menos seguros fueron los que atribuyeron más beneficios a las escalas (p= 0,0003).Los no especialistas las consideraron más útiles (p= 0,005). El 89% refirió que las escalas beneficiarían su práctica.Conclusiones: ambas escalas fueron consideradas de valor por médicos de guardia para evaluar pacientes con posibleACV. Enfatizamos la necesidad de una mayor difusión de ellas a fin de mejorar el abordaje inicial de estos pacientes.

Introduction: In 2004, the most frequent cause of death in Argentina was cardiovascular disease, which almost duplicated all types of malignant neoplasm. Cerebrovascular disease caused 7.5% of total deaths. The American Heart Association proposes the use of the Cincinnati Prehospital Stroke Scale (CPSS) and Los Angeles Prehospital Stroke Screen (LAPSS) toevaluate patients with possible cerebrovascular disease. Objective: To evaluate the awareness of these scales knowledge among doctors working in emergency rooms and prehospitalconsultation, and what are their opinions about the usefulness of the scales.Material and method: Observational and prospective survey of 569 doctors from the Argentinian provinces of Santa Fe,Entre Rios, and Chaco from December 2008 to March 2009. Results: One third (32.3%) of doctors included in the mentioned survey declared to know the scales, although only 8.4% of them could enumerate CPSS points, 1.9% could enumerate LAPSS points and 0.7% remembered both CPSS andLAPSS points. Those who remembered either one or both scales felt safer evaluating a possible stroke (p= 0.02) while and no doctor who remembered LAPSS felt doubtful. Those who felt more hesitant where the doctors who adscribed more benefits to the scales (p= 0.0003). Non specialists considered scales more useful (p= 0.005). Overall, 89% of doctors admitted scales would benefit their practice. Conclusion: Both scales were highly valued by doctors on call in order to diagnose patients with possible stroke. We stress the need of a bigger widespread coverage of these scales in order to improve the initial approach for managing these patients.