METHODS: This study used a descriptive qualitative study design. Interviews were conducted using a semistructured interview guide developed based on the theoretical domains framework. Nine in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with patients with type 2 diabetes who have been advised to start insulin or were currently using insulin and those who had been seeking diabetes treatment in the clinic for more than 1 year. Interviews were conducted after the participants were familiarized with the PDA. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) trust in the physician (patients preferred physicians to other health care providers in delivering the insulin PDA to them as they trusted physicians more when it comes to making decisions such as starting insulin), (b) physician's attitude (patients were more likely to trust a physician who is friendly and sympathetic hence would be more willing to use the insulin PDA), (c) physician's communication style (patients were more willing to use the insulin PDA if the physicians would take time and guide them in the PDA use), (d) conducive environment (patients preferred to read the PDA at home), and (e) cost (patients would not be willing to pay to use the insulin PDA unless they needed it).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients want physicians to play a major role in the implementation of the insulin PDA; physicians' communication style and commitment may influence implementation outcomes. Health care authorities need to create a conducive environment and provide patients with free access to PDA to promote effective implementation.
METHODS: Theme-oriented discourse analysis of two psychiatric consultation groups: control (n = 17) and intervention (n = 16). In the control group, only a doctor's conversation guide was used; in the intervention group, the conversation guide and a patient decision aid (PDA) were used.
RESULTS: Psychiatrists mainly dominated conversations in both consultation groups. They were less likely to elicit patient treatment-related perspectives in the intervention group as they focused more on delivering the information than obtaining patient perspectives. However, using PDA in the intervention group slightly encouraged patients to participate in decisional talk.
CONCLUSION: The decision support tools did promote SDM performance. Using the conversation guide in both consultation groups encouraged the elicitation of patient perspectives, which helped the psychiatrists in tailoring their recommendations of options based on patient preferences and concerns. Using the PDA in the intervention group created space for treatment discussion and fostered active collaboration in treatment decision making.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings have implications for SDM communication skills training and critical reflection on SDM practice.
METHODS: Patients with an admission diagnosis of suspected or confirmed infection and fulfilling at least two criteria for severe inflammatory response syndrome were included in this study. Patients' characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were used to identify prognostic factors for mortality. A scoring system was derived and validated. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality rate.
RESULTS: A total of 440 patients were included in the study. The 28-day hospital mortality rate was 32.4 and 25.2% for the derivation (293 patients) and validation (147 patients) sets, respectively. Factors associated with a higher mortality were immune-suppressed state (odds ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 2.0-11.4), systolic blood pressure on arrival less than 90 mmHg (3.8; 1.7-8.3), body temperature less than 36.0°C (4.1; 1.3-12.9), oxygen saturation less than 90% (2.3; 1.1-4.8), hematocrit less than 0.38 (3.1; 1.6-5.9), blood pH less than 7.35 (2.0; 1.04-3.9), lactate level more than 2.4 mmol/l (2.27; 1.2-4.2), and pneumonia as the source of infection (2.7; 1.5-5.0). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 (0.75-0.86) in the derivation and 0.81 (0.73-0.90) in the validation set. The SPEED (sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department) score performed better (P=0.02) than the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve of 0.81 (0.76-0.85) as compared with 0.74 (0.70-0.79).
CONCLUSION: The SPEED score predicts 28-day mortality in septic patients. It is simple and its predictive value is comparable to that of other scoring systems.
BACKGROUND: Endovascular recanalization in patients with chronic CAO has been reported to be feasible, but technically challenging.
METHODS: Endovascular attempts in 138 consecutive chronic CAO patients with impaired ipsilateral hemisphere perfusion were reviewed. We analyzed potential variables including epidemiology, symptomatology, angiographic morphology, and interventional techniques in relation to the technical success.
RESULTS: The technical success rate was 61.6%. Multivariate analysis showed absence of prior neurologic event (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10 to 0.76), nontapered stump (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.67), distal internal carotid artery (ICA) reconstitution via contralateral injection (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.75), and distal ICA reconstitution at communicating or ophthalmic segments (OR:0.12; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.36) to be independent factors associated with lower technical success. Point scores were assigned proportional to model coefficients, and technical success rates were >80% and <40% in patients with scores of ≤1 and ≥4, respectively. The c-indexes for this score system in predicting technical success was 0.820 (95% CI: 0.748 to 0.892; p < 0.001) with a sensitivity of 84.7% and a specificity of 67.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Absence of prior neurologic event, nontapered stump, distal ICA reconstitution via contralateral injection, and distal ICA reconstitution at communicating or ophthalmic segments were identified as independent negative predictors for technical success in endovascular recanalization for CAO.
METHOD: Two categories of participants, i.e., medical doctors (n = 11) and final year medical students (Group 1, n = 5; Group 2, n = 10) participated in four separate focus group discussions. Nielsen's 5 dimensions of usability (i.e. learnability, effectiveness, memorability, errors, and satisfaction) and Pentland's narrative network were adapted as the framework to study the usability and the implementation of the checklist in a real clinical setting respectively.
RESULTS: Both categories (medical doctors and medical students) of participants found that the TWED checklist was easy to learn and effective in promoting metacognition. For medical student participants, items "T" and "W" were believed to be the two most useful aspects of the checklist, whereas for the doctor participants, it was item "D". Regarding its implementation, item "T" was applied iteratively, items "W" and "E" were applied when the outcomes did not turn out as expected, and item "D" was applied infrequently. The one checkpoint where all four items were applied was after the initial history taking and physical examination had been performed to generate the initial clinical impression.
CONCLUSION: A metacognitive checklist aimed to check cognitive errors may be a useful tool that can be implemented in the real clinical setting.