BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessments of the mortality of critically ill patients are frequently performed in daily clinical practice and provide prognostic guidance in treatment decisions. In contrast to several sophisticated tools, prognostic estimations made by healthcare providers are always available and accessible, are performed daily, and might have an additive value to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of students', nurses', and physicians' estimations and the association of their combined estimations with in-hospital mortality and 6-month follow-up.METHODS: The Simple Observational Critical Care Studies is a prospective observational single-center study in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. All patients acutely admitted to the intensive care unit were included. Within 3 h of admission to the intensive care unit, a medical or nursing student, a nurse, and a physician independently predicted in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between predictions and the actual outcome; the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was calculated to estimate the discriminative accuracy of the students, nurses, and physicians.RESULTS: In 827 out of 1,010 patients, in-hospital mortality rates were predicted to be 11%, 15%, and 17% by medical students, nurses, and physicians, respectively. The estimations of students, nurses, and physicians were all associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 5.8, 95% CI [3.7, 9.2], OR 4.7, 95% CI [3.0, 7.3], and OR 7.7 95% CI [4.7, 12.8], respectively). Discriminative accuracy was moderate for all students, nurses, and physicians (between 0.58 and 0.68). When more estimations were of non-survival, the odds of non-survival increased (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) per additional estimate, AUROC 0.70 (0.65, 0.76). For 6-month mortality predictions, similar results were observed.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the initial examination, students, nurses, and physicians can only moderately predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in critically ill patients. Combined estimations led to more accurate predictions and may serve as an example of the benefit of multidisciplinary clinical care and future research efforts.
Background: A highly promoted opportunity for optimizing healthcare services is to expand the role of nonphysician care providers by care reallocation. Reallocating care from physicians to non-physicians can play an important role in solving systemic healthcare problems such as care delays, hospital overcrowding, long waiting lists, high work pressure and expanding healthcare costs. Dermatological healthcare services, such as the acne care provision, are well suited for exploring the opportunities for care reallocation as many different types of care professionals are involved in the care process. In the Netherlands, acne care is mainly delivered by general practitioners and dermatologists. The Dutch healthcare system also recognizes non-physician care providers, among which dermal therapists and beauticians are the most common professions. However, the role and added value of non-physicians is still unclear. The present study aimed to explore the possibilities for reallocating care to nonphysicians and identify drivers for and barriers to reallocation. Methods: A mixed-method design was used collecting quantitative and qualitative data from representatives of the main 4 Dutch professions providing acne care: dermatologists, GP’s, Dermal therapists and beauticians. Results: A total of 560 questionnaires were completed and 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted. A broad spectrum of non-physician tasks and responsibilities were delineated. Interviewed physicians considered acne as a low-complexity skin condition which made them willing to explore the possibilities for reallocating. A majority of all interviewees saw a key role for non-physicians in counselling and supporting patients during treatment, which they considered an important role for increasing patients’ adherence to proposed treatment regimes, contributing to successful clinical outcome. Also, the amount of time non-physicians spend on patients was experienced as driver for reallocation. Legislation and regulations, uncertainties about the extent of scientific evidence and proper protocols use within the non-physician clinical practice were experienced as barriers influencing the possibilities for reallocation. Conclusions: Delineated roles and drivers demonstrate there is room and potential for reallocation between physicians and non-physicians within acne healthcare, when barriers are adequately addressed.
LINK
AIM: Identification and synthesis of research data related to the roles and competencies of physicians and nurses that are prerequisites for careful shared decision-making with patients potentially undergoing cardiac surgery.DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews.METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from inception dates up to March 2022, to identify primary studies published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study selection, assessment of the methodological quality and data extracting of the included studies were done by at least two independent researchers. To describe the findings of the studies, an emergent synthesis approach was used to visualize a descriptive representation of professional roles and competencies in shared decision-making, in an overview.RESULTS: The systematic search revealed 10,055 potential papers, 8873 articles were screened on title and abstract and 76 full texts were retrieved. Eight articles were included for final evaluation. For nurses and physicians, 26 different skills were identified in the literature to practice shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. The skills that emerged were divided into five professional roles: moderator; health educator; data collector; psychological supporter and translator.CONCLUSIONS: This review specifies the professional roles and required competencies related to shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to compare our findings with other clinical areas and from there to arrive at a professional division of roles between the different clinical disciplines involved.IMPACT: The visualization of generic shared decision-making competencies and roles should establish the professional division of positions between various clinical physician and nurse disciplines in order to create a treatment plan based on evidence, values, preferences and the patient's personal situation.PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
