scholarly journals Emergency Department Sickle Cell Assessment of Needs and Strengths (ED-SCANS), a Focus Group and Decision Support Tool Development Project

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 848-858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Tanabe ◽  
Christopher Reddin ◽  
Victoria L. Thornton ◽  
Knox H. Todd ◽  
Ted Wun ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1413-1413
Author(s):  
Paula Tanabe ◽  
Ted Wun ◽  
Victoria Thornton ◽  
Knox Todd ◽  
John S Lyons

Abstract Abstract 1413 Poster Board I-436 Objectives: There are relatively few centers across the United States that either specialize in SCD care or have day hospitals where patients can be evaluated and urgently treated for acute pain crises. While most patients come to the ED for management of an acute pain crisis, SCD patients are at risk for many life-threatening complications. Most patients with SCD require an ED visit at some point. The complexity of SCD warrants a comprehensive assessment in the emergency department. While it may be challenging to conduct such an assessment in the ED, a succinct decision support tool may help guide clinicians in the performance of such an assessment. The benefits of such an assessment would identify unmet patient needs and help guide ED management and referrals. The goal of this project was to develop a brief, easy to use tool that guides the emergency clinicians in the identification of such needs and aid in accomplishing the following goals: 1) rapidly and aggressively manage ED pain, 2) identify other life-threatening conditions, 3) decrease hospital admission rates, 4) decrease return visits to the ED, 5) identify and increase the number of referrals made from the ED setting, and 6) increase both patient and clinician satisfaction with the ED experience. Methods: A series of seven clinician and patient focus groups were conducted in four cities across the United States (Chicago, Denver, Durham, and New York) to obtain key stakeholder input. Visits at three SCD centers of excellence (University of Colorado Denver, Duke University, Virginia Commonwealth University) were conducted, a literature search was conducted, and the PI attended SCD clinics to observe practice patterns with sickle cell experts at the University of Illinois and University of Chicago sickle cell clinics. Focus group data was analyzed using qualitative methods and is reported elsewhere. All data was synthesized and a draft tool was created and reviewed by outside experts. Revisions were made. Results: The following six key decisions were identified as being critical in achieving the tools aims: (1) what is the correct triage level, (2) how should pain be treated, (3) does the patient require a diagnostic work-up, (4) should the patient be admitted to the hospital, (5) if discharged home, is there a need for analgesic prescriptions, and (6) does the patient need a referral to a sickle cell expert or mental health or social services? Supporting data elements for each decision were also identified and included as part of the tool which will be formulated into an easy to use algorithm. Data elements include key history and physical indicators of a potential high risk situation necessitating further evaluation, pain assessment and history of analgesic use, relationship with a sickle cell expert, ED and hospital utilization history, and evaluation of psychosocial needs (self-report of anxiety or depression, work/employment status, home situation). Conclusions: Critical decisions and associated supporting elements to facilitate ED management were identified. Future work will involve finalizing and testing this communimetric tool, which will guide emergency department evaluation and management, as well as guide analgesic management in real time. Disclosures: Tanabe: NIH, and Mayday Fund: Research Funding. Todd: NIH: Research Funding; Xanodyne: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Alpharma: Consultancy; Abbott: Consultancy; Baxter Healthcare: Consultancy; Fralex Therapeutics: Consultancy; Intranasal Therapeutics: Consultancy; Baxter Health: Research Funding; Roxro: Consultancy.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Strifler ◽  
Jan M. Barnsley ◽  
Michael Hillmer ◽  
Sharon E. Straus

Abstract Background: Implementation theories, models and frameworks offer guidance when implementing and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. However, selection can be challenging given the myriad of potential options. We propose to develop a decision support tool to facilitate the appropriate selection of an implementation theory, model or framework in practice. To inform tool development, this study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting implementation theories, models and frameworks in research and practice, as well as end-user preferences for features and functions of the proposed tool.Methods: We used an interpretive descriptive approach to conduct semi-structured interviews with implementation researchers and practitioners in Canada, the United States and Australia. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data were inductively coded by a single investigator with a subset of 20% coded independently by a second investigator and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Twenty-four individuals participated in the study. Categories of barriers/facilitators, to inform tool development, included characteristics of the individual or team conducting implementation and characteristics of the implementation theory, model or framework. Major barriers to selection included inconsistent terminology, poor fit with the implementation context and limited knowledge about and training in existing theories, models and frameworks. Major facilitators to selection included the importance of clear and concise language and evidence that the theory, model or framework was applied in a relevant health setting or context. Participants were enthusiastic about the development of a decision support tool that is user-friendly, accessible and practical. Preferences for tool features included key questions about the implementation intervention or project (e.g., purpose, stage of implementation, intended target for change) and a comprehensive list of relevant theories, models and frameworks to choose from along with a glossary of terms and the contexts in which they were applied.Conclusions: An easy to use decision support tool that addresses key barriers to selecting an implementation theory, model or framework in practice may be beneficial to individuals who facilitate implementation practice activities. Findings on end-user preferences for tool features and functions will inform tool development and design through a user-centered approach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document