Development and validation of the ethical challenges in clinical situations-questionnaire (ECCS-Q) by involving health-care providers from a tertiary care health setting

2021 ◽  
pp. 147775092110114
Author(s):  
Snehil Gupta ◽  
Swarndeep Singh ◽  
Siddharth Sarkar ◽  
Atul Batra
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
Medical Responsibility

Background and rationale Clinicians often encounter a variety of ethical challenges in their routine clinical practice, and it varies across healthcare and cultural settings of their practice. Despite of this, there are no clear-cut available guidelines concerning the right course of action in a given ethically challenging situation. A validated instrument that could capture the health care providers’ (HCP’s) viewpoints in this regard is lacking from Indian settings. Thus, the current study aimed at developing an instrument to assess the HCP’s perspective regarding different ethically challenging situations encountered in the Indian settings. Methods The questionnaire was developed by involving 15 medical experts. A mixed-method approach, Delphi-technique, and online survey were used for item generation and validation. Results The questionnaire comprised of 11 items (accounts 57% variance; having an α = 0.68) representing four factors: health-resource constraints, medical responsibility of the HCP, obtaining patients/family members’ consent for the treatment, and treatment beyond the standard protocol. The gender and clinical disciplines of the participants were related to their level of endorsement for various domains of the ECCS-Q. Conclusions Ethical challenges in the clinical practice fall in different clusters. The clinicians’ course of action in such situations have many socio-demographic and professional determinants. Future studies are warranted to investigate these phenomena.

scholarly journals Improving Communications With Patients and Families in Geriatric Care. The How, When, and What

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110340
Author(s):  
Shirley Chien-Chieh Huang ◽  
Alden Morgan ◽  
Vanessa Peck ◽  
Lara Khoury
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Caregivers ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Geriatric Unit ◽  
Patient Health

There has been little published literature examining the unique communication challenges older adults pose for health care providers. Using an explanatory mixed-methods design, this study explored patients’ and their family/caregivers’ experiences communicating with health care providers on a Canadian tertiary care, inpatient Geriatric unit between March and September 2018. In part 1, the modified patient–health care provider communication scale was used and responses scored using a 5-point scale. In part 2, one-on-one telephone interviews were conducted and responses transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Thirteen patients and 7 family/caregivers completed part 1. Both groups scored items pertaining to adequacy of information sharing and involvement in decision-making in the lowest 25th percentile. Two patients and 4 family/caregivers participated in telephone interviews in part 2. Interview transcript analysis resulted in key themes that fit into the “How, When, and What” framework outlining the aspects of communication most important to the participants. Patients and family/caregivers identified strategic use of written information and predischarge family meetings as potentially valuable tools to improve communication and shared decision-making.

scholarly journals Plain Language Summary: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations

2021 ◽  
Vol 164 (4) ◽  
pp. 704-711
Author(s):  
Samantha Anne ◽  
Sandra A. Finestone ◽  
Allison Paisley ◽  
Taskin M. Monjur
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Opioid Prescribing

This plain language summary explains pain management and careful use of opioids after common otolaryngology operations. The summary applies to patients of any age who need treatment for pain within 30 days after having a common otolaryngologic operation (having to do with the ear, nose, or throat). It is based on the 2021 “Clinical Practice Guideline: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations.” This guideline uses available research to best advise health care providers, and it includes recommendations that are explained in this summary. Recommendations may not apply to every patient but can be used to facilitate shared decision making between patients and their health care providers.

scholarly journals Reopening Oral Health Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic through a Knowledge Exchange Coalition

2021 ◽  
pp. 238008442110119
Author(s):  
M. McNally ◽  
L. Rock ◽  
M. Gillis ◽  
S. Bryan ◽  
C. Boyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Oral Health Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Oral Health Services

Background: The COVID-19 novel coronavirus closed oral health care in Nova Scotia (NS) Canada in March 2020. Preparing for a phased reopening, a knowledge exchange coalition (representing government, academia, hospitals, oral health professions, and regulators) developed return-to-work (RTW) guidelines detailing the augmentation of standard practices to ensure safety for patients, oral health care providers (OHPs), and the community. Using online surveys, this study explored the influence of the RTW guidelines and related education on registered NS OHPs during a phased return to work. Methods: Dissemination of R2W guidelines included website or email communiques and interdisciplinary education webinars that coincided with 2 RTW phases approved by the government. Aligned with each phase, all registered dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants were invited to complete an online survey to gauge the influence of the coalition-sponsored education and RTW guidelines, confidence, preparedness, and personal protective equipment use before and after the pandemic. Results: Three coalition-sponsored multidisciplinary webinars hosted 3541 attendees prior to RTW. The response to survey 1 was 41% (881/2156) and to survey 2 was 26% (571/2177) of registrants. Survey 1 (82%) and survey 2 (89%) respondents “agreed/strongly agreed” that R2W guidelines were a primary source for guiding return to practice, and most were confident with education received and had the skills needed to effectively treat patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Confidence and preparedness improved in survey 2. Gowns/lab coat use for aerosol-generating procedures increased from 26% to 93%, and the use of full face shields rose from 6% to 93% during the pandemic. Conclusions: A multistakeholder coalition was effective in establishing and communicating comprehensive guidelines and web-based education to ensure unified reintegration of oral health services in NS during a pandemic. This multiorganizational cooperation lay the foundation for responses to subsequent waves of COVID-19 and may serve as an example for collaboratively responding to future public health threats in other settings. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The return-to-work strategy that was developed, disseminated, and assessed through this COVID-19 knowledge exchange coalition will benefit oral health practitioners, professional regulators, government policy makers, and researchers in future pandemic planning.

Consent, Refusal, and Waivers in Patient-Centered Dysphagia Care: Using Law, Ethics, and Evidence to Guide Clinical Practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Horner ◽  
Maria Modayil ◽  
Laura Roche Chapman ◽  
An Dinh
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Legal Advice ◽  
Medical Context

PurposeWhen patients refuse medical or rehabilitation procedures, waivers of liability have been used to bar future lawsuits. The purpose of this tutorial is to review the myriad issues surrounding consent, refusal, and waivers. The larger goal is to invigorate clinical practice by providing clinicians with knowledge of ethics and law. This tutorial is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.MethodThe authors use a hypothetical case of a “noncompliant” individual under the care of an interdisciplinary neurorehabilitation team to illuminate the ethical and legal features of the patient–practitioner relationship; the elements of clinical decision-making capacity; the duty of disclosure and the right of informed consent or informed refusal; and the relationship among noncompliance, defensive practices, and iatrogenic harm. We explore the legal question of whether waivers of liability in the medical context are enforceable or unenforceable as a matter of public policy.ConclusionsSpeech-language pathologists, among other health care providers, have fiduciary and other ethical and legal obligations to patients. Because waivers try to shift liability for substandard care from health care providers to patients, courts usually find waivers of liability in the medical context unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

scholarly journals Moving Stroke Rehabilitation Research Evidence into Clinical Practice: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations From the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 935-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janice J. Eng ◽  
Marie-Louise Bird ◽  
Erin Godecke ◽  
Tammy C. Hoffmann ◽  
Carole Laurin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Stroke Recovery ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Consensus Process ◽  
International Consensus

Moving research evidence to practice can take years, if not decades, which denies stroke patients and families from receiving the best care. We present the results of an international consensus process prioritizing what research evidence to implement into stroke rehabilitation practice to have maximal impact. An international 10-member Knowledge Translation Working Group collaborated over a six-month period via videoconferences and a two-day face-to-face meeting. The process was informed from surveys received from 112 consumers/family members and 502 health care providers in over 28 countries, as well as from an international advisory of 20 representatives from 13 countries. From this consensus process, five of the nine identified priorities relate to service delivery (interdisciplinary care, screening and assessment, clinical practice guidelines, intensity, family support) and are generally feasible to implement or improve upon today. Readily available website resources are identified to help health care providers harness the necessary means to implement existing knowledge and solutions to improve service delivery. The remaining four priorities relate to system issues (access to services, transitions in care) and resources (equipment/technology, staffing) and are acknowledged to be more difficult to implement. We recommend that health care providers, managers, and organizations determine whether the priorities we identified are gaps in their local practice, and if so, consider implementation solutions to address them to improve the quality of lives of people living with stroke.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of the Self-Reported Knowledge Base of Disaster Management Core Competencies of Australian Paramedics

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (s1) ◽  
pp. s129-s130
Author(s):  
Peter Horrocks ◽  
Vivienne Tippett ◽  
Peter Aitken
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Disaster Management ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Ambulance Service ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Extensive Experience

Introduction:Evidence-based training and curriculum are seen as vital in order to be successful in preparing paramedics for an effective disaster response. The creation of broadly recognized standard core competencies to support the development of disaster response education and training courses for general health care providers and specific health care professionals will help to ensure that medical personnel are truly prepared to care for victims of mass casualty events.Aim:To identify current Australian operational paramedic’s specific disaster management education and knowledge as it relates to disaster management core competencies identified throughout the literature and the frequency of measures/techniques which these paramedics use to maintain competency and currency.Methods:Paramedics from all states of Australia were invited to complete an anonymous online survey. Two professional bodies distributed the survey via social media and a major ambulance service was surveyed via email.Results:The study population includes 130 respondents who self-identified as a currently practicing Australian paramedic. Paramedics from all states except South Australia responded, with the majority coming from Queensland Ambulance Service (N= 81%). In terms of experience, 81.54% of respondents report being qualified for greater than 5 years. Initial analysis shows that despite the extensive experience of the practitioners surveyed when asked to rate from high to low their level of knowledge of specific disaster management core competencies a number of gaps exist.Discussion:Core competencies are a defined level of expertise that is essential or fundamental to a particular job, and serve to form the foundation of education, training, and practice for operational service delivery. While more research is needed, these results may help inform industry, government, and education providers to better understand and to more efficiently provide education and ongoing training to paramedics who are responsible for the management of disaster within the Australian community.

scholarly journals P023: Code Resus - using a quality improvement approach to improve health care provider response during resuscitations

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S86-S86
Author(s):  
L.B. Chartier ◽  
S. Hansen ◽  
D. Lim ◽  
S. Yi ◽  
B. McGovern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Change Initiatives ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Before And After

Introduction: In order to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients requiring resuscitation (PRRs) in the emergency department (ED), health care providers (HCPs) must provide an efficient, multi-disciplinary and coordinated response. A quality improvement (QI) project was undertaken to improve HCP response to PRRs at two tertiary care hospital EDs in Toronto. Methods: We conducted a before-and-after mixed-method survey to evaluate the perception of the adequacy of HCP response and clarity of HCP role when responding to PRRs. The results were compared using the Chi-square test. Qualitative responses to the first survey were also used to inform the development of the QI project. Through interviews of key stakeholders and with continuous input from front-line ED HCPs, a multi-disciplinary team modified the ED resuscitation protocol. This included standardized pre-hospital communication form with paramedics, ED-wide overhead announcement of ‘Code Resus’, dedicated HCPs assigned to respond to PRRs, and specific duties assigned to each responder. Change initiatives were reinforced through education and posters in the ED. Six months after implementation, a second survey was conducted to evaluate the sustained effects of the intervention. Results: Baseline measures indicated that 16 of 52 (30.8%) nurses surveyed believed their role was often or always apparent to themselves and others when they attended to a PRR (on a 5-point rating scale). This proportion increased to 35 of 55 (63.6%) nurses in the post-implementation survey (p < 0.001). Regarding adequacy of the number of HCPs responding to PRRs, 17 of 39 (43.6%) physicians and 23 of 53 (43.4%) nurses surveyed thought the appropriate number of HCPs responded to PRRs; the remainder thought that there were too few or too many HCPs. In the post-implementation survey, 34 of 41 (82.9%) physicians (p < 0.001) and 36 of 56 (64.3%) nurses (p = 0.029) surveyed felt that the appropriate number of HCPs attended to PRRs. Conclusion: Using a quality improvement approach, we identified and quantified perceived deficiencies in HCP response to PRRs in the ED. Through feedback-based modifications of the ED resuscitation protocol and by engaging HCP stakeholders, change initiatives were implemented to improve HCP response. As a result, this project achieved significant and sustained improvements in HCPs’ perceived response to PRRs.

scholarly journals Health care providers knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers towards emergency contraception in a sub-Himalayan state of India

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 3244
Author(s):  
Rajiv Kumar Gupta ◽  
Bhavna Langer ◽  
Parveen Singh ◽  
Rashmi Kumari ◽  
Najma Akhtar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Emergency Contraception ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Unwanted Pregnancy ◽  
Unprotected Sex ◽  
Perceived Barriers ◽  
Family Welfare ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cross Sectional

Background: Emergency Contraception (EC) is a method of contraception used within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent unwanted pregnancy. More than ten years since its use, a study was conducted among health care providers to assess their knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers towards EC.Methods: The current cross-sectional study was conducted among the health care providers (HCPs) in all the health institutions of Jammu city, one of which included a tertiary care teaching hospital. The HCPs for the purpose of the current study included Medical Officers (MOs), Lady Health Visitors/ Staff Nurses (LHV/ SNs) and pharmacists. A 24 item pre-tested questionnaire was administered to the respondents to gather the relevant information.Results: MOs and LHV/SNs were found to have better knowledge than the pharmacists. Higher proportion of LHV/SNs and pharmacists were willing to learn more about EC (p<0.05). About two-third of MOs and LHV/SNs agreed about shortage of time during clinic schedule to counsel the users about EC (p<0.05).Conclusions: Gaps in the knowledge of the respondents need to be taken care of with continuing in-service trainings along with behaviour change communication. Role of pharmacists as health care provider especially in the context of family welfare services needs to be reassessed.

scholarly journals Plain Language Summary: Sudden Hearing Loss

2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-217
Author(s):  
Sujana S. Chandrasekhar ◽  
Deena B. Hollingsworth ◽  
Taskin M. Monjur ◽  
Lisa Satterfield
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Sudden Hearing Loss ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Plain Language

This plain language summary explains sudden hearing loss (SHL) to patients and focuses on sudden sensorineural (pronounced sen-suh-ree-noo r-uh l) hearing loss (SSNHL). The summary is for adult patients aged 18 and over and is based on the 2019 “Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update).” The guideline uses research to advise doctors and other health care providers on the proper testing and treatment of patients with SSNHL. The guideline includes recommendations that are explained in this summary. Recommendations may not apply to every patient but can be used to help patients ask questions and make decisions in their own care.

P003 INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE PATIENTS’ PERSPECTIVES OF CLINICAL TRIALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S53-S53
Author(s):  
David Rubin ◽  
Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet ◽  
Walter Reinisch ◽  
Swati Tole ◽  
Laura Sullivan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturer ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background Despite recent progress in treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), there is a need for therapies with long-term efficacy and improved safety. Clinical trials in IBD face challenges with patient recruitment because of study designs, competitive or overlapping trials, and a limited number of eligible patients. We sought to better understand patients’ motivations, awareness of, and experience with IBD clinical trials. Methods We conducted an international survey of adult patients with IBD consisting of 2 components. The quantitative component, a 15-minute online survey, was completed by all patients. A qualitative component, a 30-minute telephone interview, was completed by a subset of patients from the United States (US). All percentages indicate results from the online survey. Results 226 patients (mean age, 41.9 y) completed the online survey. Survey respondents included patients with ulcerative colitis (52%) and Crohn’s disease (48%) from the US (n=100, 21 of whom underwent a phone interview), Brazil (n=26), Canada (n=25), France (n=25), Germany (n=25), and Spain (n=25). Ninety-six percent of respondents reported at least a basic understanding of clinical trials, and 34 (15%) were current or past clinical trial participants. Patients reported learning about trials through 1 or more sources (could select as many as applied): health care providers (42%), pharmaceutical manufacturer websites (31%), social media (30%), online support groups (28%), and foundations (18%-23%). In the survey, patients rated conversations with health care providers most helpful, but patients who were interviewed revealed that most physicians often do not initiate conversations about clinical trials, and patients typically do not ask. Primary motivators for trial participation (rated from “does not encourage me at all” to “encourages me very much”) included altruistic goals of advancing medicine (67%), potentially mitigating risks of uncontrolled IBD such as colon cancer (59%), and access to treatment options that could improve quality of life (59%) or would otherwise be unaffordable (52%). Major barriers to participation (rated from “does not discourage me at all” to “discourages me very much”) included invasive screening and monitoring (35%), concern over receiving placebo (35%), or suboptimal treatment (33%), and concerns about posttrial access to study medication (27%). The majority (68%) reported that being in a clinical trial means being a “guinea pig” for an experimental treatment. Conclusion Opportunities to improve patients’ clinical trial experience in IBD include better communication with health care providers and improved patient education about clinical trial design and ethics. Ultimately, a better understanding of the patient perspective will be important for more informed patients and potentially higher recruitment and enrollment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document