IMPORTANCE Seriously ill hospitalized patients have identified communication and decision making about goals of care as high priorities for quality improvement in end-of-life care. Interventions to improve care are more likely to succeed if tailored to existing barriers.OBJECTIVE To determine, from the perspective of hospital-based clinicians, (1) barriers impeding communication and decision making about goals of care with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families and (2) their own willingness and the acceptability for other clinicians to engage in this process. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSMulticenter survey of medical teaching units of nurses, internal medicine residents, and staff physicians from participating units at 13 university-based hospitals from 5 Canadian provinces. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESImportance of 21 barriers to goals of care discussions rated on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). RESULTS Between September 2012 and March 2013, questionnaires were returned by 1256 of 1617 eligible clinicians, for an overall response rate of 77.7% (512 of 646 nurses [79.3%], 484 of 634 residents [76.3%], 260 of 337 staff physicians [77.2%]). The following family member-related and patient-related factors were consistently identified by all 3 clinician groups as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions: family members' or patients' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score, 5.8 [1.2] and 5.6 [1.3], respectively), family members' or patients' difficulty understanding the limitations and complications of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.2] for both groups), disagreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]), and patients' incapacity to make goals of care decisions (5.6 [1.2]). Clinicians perceived their own skills and system factors as less important barriers. Participants viewed it as acceptable for all clinician groups to engage in goals of care discussions-including a role for advance practice nurses, nurses, and social workers to initiate goals of care discussions and be a decision coach.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospital-based clinicians perceive family member-related and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions. All health care professionals were viewed as playing important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication and decision making about goals of care.

BackgroundAs populations in Western countries continue to change in their ethnic composition, there is a need for regular surveillance of diseases that have previously shown some health disparities. Earlier data have already demonstrated high rates of cardiovascular mortality among South Asians and relatively lower rates among people of Chinese descent. The aim of this study was to describe the differences in the incidence of hospitalized acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among the three largest ethnic groups in British Columbia (BC), Canada.MethodsUsing hospital administrative data, we identified all patients with incident AMI in BC between April 1, 1995, and March 31, 2002. Census data from 2001 provided the denominator for the entire BC population. Ethnicity was determined using validated surname analysis and applied to the census and hospital administrative datasets. Direct age standardization was used to compare incidence rates.ResultsA total of 34,848 AMI cases were identified. Among men, South Asians had the highest age standardized rate of AMI hospitalization at 4.97/1000 population/year, followed by Whites at 3.29, and then Chinese at 0.98. Young South Asian men, in particular, showed incidence rates that were double that of young Whites and ten times that of young Chinese men. South Asian women also had the highest age-standardized rate of AMI hospitalization at 2.35/1000 population/year, followed by White women (1.53) and Chinese women (0.49).ConclusionsSouth Asians continue to have a higher incidence of hospitalized AMI while incidence rates among Chinese remain low. Ethnic differences are most notable among younger men.

No abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine whether South Asian patients with diabetes have a worse prognosis following hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with their White counterparts. We measured the risk of developing a composite cardiovascular outcome of recurrent AMI, congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalization, or death, in these two groups.MethodsUsing hospital administrative data, we performed a retrospective cohort study of 41,615 patients with an incident AMI in British Columbia and the Calgary Health Region between April 1, 1995, and March 31, 2002. South Asian ethnicity was determined using validated surname analysis. Baseline demographic characteristics and co-morbidities were included in Cox proportional hazard models to compare time to reaching the composite outcome and its individual components.ResultsAmong the AMI cohort, 29.7% of South Asian patients and 17.6% of White patients were identified as having diabetes (n = 7416). There was no significant difference in risk of developing the composite cardiovascular outcome (Hazard Ratio = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.80-1.01). However, South Asian patients had significantly lower mortality at long term follow-up (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.51-0.74) compared to their White counterparts.ConclusionsFollowing hospitalization for AMI, South Asian patients with diabetes do not have a significantly different long term risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome compared to White patients with diabetes. While previous research has suggested worse cardiovascular outcomes in the South Asian population, we found lower long-term mortality among South Asians with diabetes following AMI.

BackgroundDecisions about care options and the use of life-sustaining treatments should be informed by a person’s values and treatment preferences. The objective of this study was to examine the consistency of ratings of the importance of the values statements and the association between values statement ratings and the patient’s expressed treatment preference.MethodsWe conducted a multi-site survey in 20 family practices. Patients aged 50 and older self-completed a questionnaire assessing the importance of eight values (rated 1 to 10), and indicated their preference for use of life-sustaining treatment (5 options). We compared correlations among values to a priori hypotheses based on whether the value related to prolonging or shortening life, and examined expected relationships between importance of values and the preference option for life-sustaining treatment.ResultsEight hundred ten patients participated (92% response rate). Of 24 a priori predicted correlations among values statements, 14 were statistically significant but nearly all were negligible in their magnitude and some were in the opposite direction than expected. For example, the correlation between importance of being comfortable and suffering as little as possible and the importance of living as long as possible should have been inversely correlated but was positively correlated (r = 0.08, p = 0.03). Correlations between importance of values items and preference were negligible, ranging from 0.03 to 0.13.ConclusionsPatients may not recognize that trade-offs in what is most important may be needed when considering the use of treatments. In the context of preparation for decision-making during serious illness, decision aids that highlight these trade-offs and connect values to preferences more directly may be more helpful than those that do not.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0570-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background Physicians are often called to evaluate patients overnight with varying levels of clinical deterioration. Early warning scores predict critical clinical deterioration in patients; however, it is unknown whether they are able to reliably predict which patients will need to be seen overnight and whether these patients will require further resource use. Methods A prospective case cohort study of 522 patient nights in a single tertiary care hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, was conducted to assess the ability of Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to predict patients who will need to be seen overnight by physicians and will require other healthcare resources. Prediction ability was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and logistic regression models. Results The MEWS and NEWS both significantly predicted which patients needed to be seen overnight, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (95% confidence interval) for MEWS and NEWS were 0.72 (0.66–0.78) and 0.69 (0.63–0.76), respectively. Odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for MEWS and NEWS predicting need to be seen overnight were 1.52 (1.34–1.73) and 1.22 (1.14–1.31), respectively. Conclusions Both MEWS and NEWS have fair ability to predict patients who will need to be seen overnight. This may be useful for improving handover and resource allocation for overnight care.

BackgroundThe effect of a multi-faceted handoff strategy in a high volume internal medicine inpatient setting on process and patient outcomes has not been clearly established. We set out to determine if a multi-faceted handoff intervention consisting of education, standardized handoff procedures, including fixed time and location for face-to-face handoff would result in improved rates of handoff compared with usual practice. We also evaluated resident satisfaction, health resource utilization and clinical outcomes.MethodsThis was a cluster randomized controlled trial in a large academic tertiary care center with 18 inpatient internal medicine ward teams from January-April 2013. We randomized nine inpatient teams to an intervention where they received an education session standardizing who and how to handoff patients, with practice and feedback from facilitators. The control group of 9 teams continued usual non-standardized handoffs. The primary process outcome was the rate of patients handed over per 1000 patient nights. Other process outcomes included perceptions of inadequate handoff by overnight physicians, resource utilization overnight and hospital length of stay. Clinical outcomes included medical errors, frequency of patients requiring higher level of care overnight, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsThe intervention group demonstrated a significant increase in the rate of patients handed over to the overnight physician (62.90/1000 person-nights vs. 46.86/1000 person-nights, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in other process outcomes except resource utilization was increased in the intervention group (26.35/1000 person-days vs. 17.57/1000 person-days, p-value = 0.01). There was no significant difference between groups in medical errors (4.8% vs. 4.1%), need for higher level of care or in hospital mortality. Limitations include a dependence of accurate record keeping by the overnight physician, the possibility of cross-contamination in the handoff process, analysis at the cluster level and an overall low number of clinical events.ConclusionsImplementation of a multi-faceted resident handoff intervention did not result in a significant improvement in patient safety although did improve number of patients handed off. Novel methods to improve handoff need to be explored.Trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01796756.