No abstract

Objective To identify modifiable factors that influence relatives' decision to allow organ donation. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, Embase, and CINAHL, without language restriction, searched to April 2008. Review methods Three authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified studies. We excluded studies that examined only factors affecting consent that could not be altered, such as donor ethnicity. We extracted quantitative results to an electronic database. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar themes. Results We included 20 observational studies and audits. There were no randomised controlled trials. The main factors associated with reduced rates of refusal were the provision of adequate information on the process of organ donation and its benefits; high quality of care of potential organ donors; ensuring relatives had a clear understanding of brain stem death; separating the request for organ donation from notification that the patient had died; making the request in a private setting; and using trained and experienced individuals to make the request. Conclusions Limited evidence suggests that there are modifiable factors in the process of requests for organ donation, in particular the skills of the individual making the request and the timing of this conversation, that might have a significant impact on rates of consent. Targeting these factors might have a greater and more immediate effect on the number of organs for donation than legislative or other long term strategies.

This survey study estimates the national frequency and consequences of cascades of care after incidental findings using results from a national survey of US physicians.

Medical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection. OBJECTIVE To compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSWe conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Error and AE rates.RESULTS Overall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P=.006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Families provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better des...

Discussing the uncertainty associated with a clinical decision is thought to be a critical element of shared decision-making. Yet, empirical evidence suggests that clinicians rarely communicate clinical uncertainty to patients, and indeed the culture within healthcare environments is often to equate uncertainty with ignorance or failure. Understanding the rationale for discussion of uncertainty along with the current evidence about approaches to communicating and managing uncertainty can advance shared decision-making as well as highlight gaps in evidence. With an increasing focus on personalized healthcare, and advances in genomics and new disease biomarkers, a more sophisticated understanding of how to communicate the limitations and errors that come from applying population-based, epidemiologic findings to predict individuals' futures is going to be essential. This article provides a narrative review of studies relating to the communication of uncertainty, highlighting current strategies together with challenges and barriers, and outlining a framework for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract