Background: Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock.Methods: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (COAP) and critical care ultrasonography (COCCUS). The strength of linear correlation of both methods was determined by the Pearson coefficient. Bland-Altman plot and four-quadrant plot were used to track agreement and trending ability.Result: Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. COAP and COCCUS had strong positive linear correlation (r2 = 0.60, p < 0.001). Bias of COAP and COCCUS was 0.2 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.2 to 0.6) with limits of agreement of - 3.6 L min-1 (95% CI - 4.3 to - 2.9) to 4.0 L min-1 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7). The percentage error was 65.6% (95% CI 53.2 to 77.3). Concordance rate was 64.4%.Conclusions: In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Children and adolescents in mental healthcare often perceive their care needs and necessary treatment differently from their clinicians. As such discordance between young patients and clinicians may obstruct treatment adherence and compromise treatment outcomes, it is important to understand the factors associated with it. We therefore investigated the factors associated with patient–clinician discordance with regard to care needs in various areas of functioning. Methods: A cross-sectional study involving 244 children/adolescents aged 6–18 participating with their clinicians in treatment at a specialized mental healthcare center. As a previous study conducted by our research group had found the greatest patient–clinician discordance in three CANSAS care needs—“mental health problems,” “information regarding diagnosis and/or treatment,” and “making and/or keeping friends”—we used univariable and multivariable statistics to investigate the factors associated with discordance regarding these three care needs. Results: patient–clinician discordance on the three CANSAS items was associated with child, parent, and family/social-context factors. Three variables were significant in each of the three final multivariable models: dangerous behavior towards self (child level); severity of psychiatric problems of the parent (parent level); and growing up in a single-parent household (family/social-context level). Conclusions: To deliver treatment most effectively and to prevent drop-out, it is important during diagnostic assessment and treatment planning to address the patient’s care needs at all three levels: child, parent and family/social context.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Purpose In mental health care, patients and their care providers may conceptualize the nature of the disorder and appropriate action in profoundly diferent ways. This may lead to dropout and lack of compliance with the treatments being provided, in particular in young patients with more severe disorders. This study provides detailed information about patient–provider (dis)agreement regarding the care needs of children and adolescents. Methods We used the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CANSAS) to assess the met and unmet needs of 244 patients aged between 6 and 18 years. These needs were assessed from the perspectives of both patients and their care providers. Our primary outcome measure was agreement between the patient and care provider on unmet need. By comparing a general outpatient sample (n=123) with a youth-ACT sample (n=121), we were able to assess the infuence of severity of psychiatric and psychosocial problems on the extent of agreement on patient’s unmet care needs. Results In general, patients reported unmet care needs less often than care providers did. Patients and care providers had the lowest extents of agreement on unmet needs with regard to “mental health problems” (k=0.113) and “information regarding diagnosis/treatment” (k=0.171). Comparison of the two mental healthcare settings highlighted diferences for three-quarters of the unmet care needs that were examined. Agreement was lower in the youth-ACT setting. Conclusions Clarifcation of diferent views on patients’ unmet needs may help reduce nonattendance of appointments, noncompliance, or dropout. Routine assessment of patients’ and care providers’ perceptions of patients’ unmet care needs may also help provide information on areas of disagreement.
DOCUMENT
