scholarly journals Novel IT Application for Reverse Triage Selection: A Pilot Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 599-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwen Pollaris ◽  
Stéphanie Note ◽  
Didier Desruelles ◽  
Marc Sabbe
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Electronic Record ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Mass Casualty ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Random Group ◽  
It Application

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an evidence-based information technology (IT) application that guides clinical decision-making during the reverse-triage selection process in mass casualty incidents.MethodsBased upon 28 validated critical interventions (CI) relevant for determining whether a patient qualifies for early discharge, we developed the Reverse Triage Tool of Leuven (RTTL). The RTTL is compatible with the health electronic record (HER) of UZ Leuven, a tertiary hospital in Belgium. During a 3-week period in March 2015, we registered data from 2 groups of patients: a random group (no RTTL usage) and a filtered group (RTTL usage).ResultsWhen applying the original 28 CIs, we were able to select almost twice as many patients in the filtered group who qualified for early discharge compared with patients in the random group. The predictive validity was highly satisfactory.ConclusionsThe RTTL saves time in 2 ways. First, it reduces the patient population that needs to be evaluated for potential early discharge to one-third. Second, it doubles the probability of selecting an actual dischargeable patient. Each selected patient, however, still must undergo multidisciplinary reassessment in order to qualify for early discharge. Thus, further research is required to optimize the IT application.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:599–605)

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Supporting the Development of Clinical Reasoning of Preprofessional Novices in Dysphagia Management

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (03) ◽  
pp. 151-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Doeltgen ◽  
Stacie Attrill ◽  
Joanne Murray
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Implicit Processing ◽  
Reasoning Skills

AbstractProficient clinical reasoning is a critical skill in high-quality, evidence-based management of swallowing impairment (dysphagia). Clinical reasoning in this area of practice is a cognitively complex process, as it requires synthesis of multiple sources of information that are generated during a thorough, evidence-based assessment process and which are moderated by the patient's individual situations, including their social and demographic circumstances, comorbidities, or other health concerns. A growing body of health and medical literature demonstrates that clinical reasoning skills develop with increasing exposure to clinical cases and that the approaches to clinical reasoning differ between novices and experts. It appears that it is not the amount of knowledge held, but the way it is used, that distinguishes a novice from an experienced clinician. In this article, we review the roles of explicit and implicit processing as well as illness scripts in clinical decision making across the continuum of medical expertise and discuss how they relate to the clinical management of swallowing impairment. We also reflect on how this literature may inform educational curricula that support SLP students in developing preclinical reasoning skills that facilitate their transition to early clinical practice. Specifically, we discuss the role of case-based curricula to assist students to develop a meta-cognitive awareness of the different approaches to clinical reasoning, their own capabilities and preferences, and how and when to apply these in dysphagia management practice.

scholarly journals Predicting mortality in adults with suspected infection in a Rwandan hospital: an evaluation of the adapted MEWS, qSOFA and UVA scores

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040361
Author(s):  
Amanda Klinger ◽  
Ariel Mueller ◽  
Tori Sutherland ◽  
Christophe Mpirimbanyi ◽  
Elie Nziyomaze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Early Warning Score ◽  
Receiver Operating Curve ◽  
Predictive Capacity ◽  
Suspected Infection ◽  
Significant Difference

RationaleMortality prediction scores are increasingly being evaluated in low and middle income countries (LMICs) for research comparisons, quality improvement and clinical decision-making. The modified early warning score (MEWS), quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) score use variables that are feasible to obtain, and have demonstrated potential to predict mortality in LMIC cohorts.ObjectiveTo determine the predictive capacity of adapted MEWS, qSOFA and UVA in a Rwandan hospital.Design, setting, participants and outcome measuresWe prospectively collected data on all adult patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Rwanda with suspected infection over 7 months. We calculated an adapted MEWS, qSOFA and UVA score for each participant. The predictive capacity of each score was assessed including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, OR, area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) and performance by underlying risk quartile.ResultsWe screened 19 178 patient days, and enrolled 647 unique patients. Median age was 35 years, and in-hospital mortality was 18.1%. The proportion of data missing for each variable ranged from 0% to 11.7%. The sensitivities and specificities of the scores were: adapted MEWS >4, 50.4% and 74.9%, respectively; qSOFA >2, 24.8% and 90.4%, respectively; and UVA >4, 28.2% and 91.1%, respectively. The scores as continuous variables demonstrated the following AUROCs: adapted MEWS 0.69 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.74), qSOFA 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70), and UVA 0.71 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.76); there was no statistically significant difference between the discriminative capacities of the scores.ConclusionThree scores demonstrated a modest ability to predict mortality in a prospective study of inpatients with suspected infection at a Rwandan tertiary hospital. Careful consideration must be given to their adequacy before using them in research comparisons, quality improvement or clinical decision-making.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND CLINICAL DECISION MAKING:

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Granados
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Systematic Process

This paper examines the rationality of the concepts underlying evidence—based medicineand health technology assessment (HTA), which are part of a new current aimed at promoting the use of the results of scientific studies for decision making in health care. It describes the different approaches and purposes of this worldwide movement, in relation to clinical decision making, through a summarized set of specific HTA case studies from Catalonia, Spain. The examples illustrate how the systematic process of HTA can help in several types of uncertainties related to clinical decision making.

scholarly journals The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search

2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Mamédio da Costa Santos ◽  
Cibele Andrucioli de Mattos Pimenta ◽  
Moacyr Roberto Cuce Nobre
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Review Of The Literature

Evidence based practice is the use of the best scientific evidence to support the clinical decision making. The identification of the best evidence requires the construction of an appropriate research question and review of the literature. This article describes the use of the PICO strategy for the construction of the research question and bibliographical search.

scholarly journals Blood transfusion prescribing in the ACT: an insight into clinical decision making

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J Crispin ◽  
Bethany J Crowe ◽  
Anne M McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Organisation Of Care ◽  
Metropolitan Hospital ◽  
Loss Of Appetite ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Structured Questionnaire

This study aimed to determine the perspectives of a group of patients categorised as ?long-stay outliers? at a large South Australian metropolitan hospital about aspects of organisation of care and the perceived impact of long-term hospitalisation. Nineteen patients were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Eighty-nine percent of participants stated that they had no knowledge of how long they were to be in hospital. Forty-two percent indicated that they did not know when they would be discharged from hospital. This was of concern, especially considering the vulnerability of this patient group and the known benefits of patient involvement in decision making and the improvements this can make to health outcomes and early discharge. Participants indicated concern about sleep deprivation, diet, ability to return to paid employment, and missing their family as the main areas of impact of their long hospitalisation. Concerns about being discharged from hospital included: apprehension as to whether they were well enough to leave; the recurrence of infection; whether they would be able to sleep well when they got home; their recent loss of appetite and associated weight loss; mobility concerns; and what supports they would have when they were discharged home. All these issues require staff to be more patient and family-centred in their approach to preparing for discharge.

Oxytocin versus carbetocin administered to cows after uncomplicated calvings and subsequent fertility

2016 ◽  
Vol 179 (7) ◽  
pp. 175-176
Author(s):  
Natalie Robinson ◽  
Marnie Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Subsequent Fertility ◽  
The University

BestBETs for Vets are generated by the Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine at the University of Nottingham to help answer specific questions and assist in clinical decision making. Although evidence is often limited, they aim to find, present and draw conclusions from the best available evidence, using a standardised framework. A more detailed description of how BestBETs for Vets are produced was published in VR, April 4, 2015, vol 176, pp 354-356.

Integrating research and evidence-based guidance into prescribing practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 120-123
Author(s):  
Adam Bedson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Prescribing Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

The College of Paramedics and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are clear that they require advanced paramedics, as non-medical prescribers, to review and critically appraise the evidence base underpinning their prescribing practice. Evidence-based clinical guidance such as that published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is recommended as the primary source of evidence on which paramedics should base their prescribing decisions. NICE guidance reflects the best available evidence on which to base clinical decision-making. However, paramedics still need to critically appraise the evidence underpinning their prescribing, applying expertise and decision-making skills to inform their clinical reasoning. This is achieved by synthesising information from multiple sources to make appropriate, evidence-based judgments and diagnoses. This first article in the prescribing paramedic pharmacology series considers the importance of evidence-based paramedic prescribing, alongside a range of tools that can be used to develop and apply critical appraisal skills to support prescribing decision-making. These include critical appraisal check lists and research reporting tools

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document