The group visit format for delivering B/N promotes group-specific communication behaviors that may add unique value in supporting patients in their recovery. Future research should elucidate whether these benefits can be isolated from those achieved solely through medication treatment with B/N and if similar benefits could be achieved in non-primary care sites.
Background: Group-based models of Office-Based Opioid Treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone (B/N) are increasingly being implemented in clinical practice to increase access to care and provide additional therapeutic benefits. While previous studies reported these Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) models are feasible for providers and acceptable to patients, there has been no literature to help providers with the more practical aspects of how to create and maintain GBOT in different outpatient settings. Case series: We present 4 cases of GBOT implementation across a large academic health care system, highlighting various potential approaches for providers who seek to implement GBOT and demonstrate “success” based on feasibility and sustainability of these models. For each case, we describe the pros and cons and detail the personnel and resources involved, patient mix and group format, workflow logistics, monitoring and management, and sustainability components. Discussion: The implementation details illustrate that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, although feasibility is commonly supported by a team-based, patient-centered medical home. This approach includes the capacity for referral to higher levels of mental health and addiction support services and is bolstered by ongoing provider communication and shared resources across the health system. Future research identifying the core and malleable components to implementation, their evidence base, and how they might be influenced by site-specific resources, culture, and other contextual factors can help providers better understand how to implement a GBOT model in their unique clinical environment.
BackgroundNear‐infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a non‐invasive technology that estimates regional oxygen saturation. Literature demonstrates that NIRS can provide valuable data for clinical staff. However, little research has addressed the nursing care and management of NIRS in the critical care environment.AimsTo assess nurses' perception around the use of NIRS and current NIRS practice within PCICUs.Study DesignA 53‐item cross‐sectional electronic survey was developed to assess indications for NIRS, critical value thresholds and interventions, barriers to use, policies and procedures, and nursing perceptions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and aggregate data.ResultsAmong the 28 responding sites (63.6% response rate), usage of NIRS was variable and patient‐dependent. Most nurses reported using NIRS in patients with unstable physiology such as post‐operative single ventricle (n = 25, 89.3%) and concern for shock (n = 21, 75.0%). Critically low cerebral values varied among respondents from less than 40 (n = 3, 10.7%) to less than 60 (n = 4, 14.3%), with lower critical values permitted for single ventricle physiology: less than 40 (n = 8, 28.6%) to less than 50 (n = 6, 21.4%). Reported barriers to using NIRS included skin breakdown (n = 9, 32.1%), lack of consistency in decision‐making among physicians (n = 13, 46.4%), and not using NIRS data when developing a plan of care (n = 11, 39.3%). Most (n = 24, 85.7%) nurses reported that NIRS provided valuable information and was perceived to be beneficial for patients.ConclusionsNIRS monitoring is a common technology in the care of complex congenital heart disease patients. Most nurses valued this technology, but inconsistencies and practicalities around its use in guiding patient management were found to be problematic.Relevance to Clinical PracticeNIRS is commonly used in the PCICU and although nurses perceived NIRS to be useful for their practice, the variability in the interpretation of values and inconsistent protocols and decision‐making by physicians was challenging.
Background The Intensive Care Unit Complexity Assessment and Monitoring to Ensure Optimal Outcomes (ICU CAMEO III) acuity tool measures patient acuity in terms of the complexity of nursing cognitive workload. Objective To validate the ICU CAMEO III acuity tool in US children’s hospitals. Methods Using a convenience sample, 9 sites enrolled children admitted to pediatric intensive care units (ICUs). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, nursing, and unit characteristics. Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlating the ICU CAMEO III with the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-Children (TISS-C) and the Pediatric Risk of Mortality III (PRISM III). Results Patients (N = 840) were enrolled from 15 units (7 cardiac and 8 mixed pediatric ICUs). The mean number of ICU beds was 23 (range, 12-34). Among the patients, 512 (61%) were diagnosed with cardiac and 328 (39%) with noncardiac conditions; 463 patients (55.1%) were admitted for medical reasons, and 377 patients (44.9%) were surgical. The ICU CAMEO III median score was 99 (range, 59-163). The ICU CAMEO complexity classification was determined for all 840 patients: 60 (7.1%) with level I complexity; 183 (21.8%) with level II; 201 (23.9%), level III; 267 (31.8%), level IV; and 129 (15.4%), level V. Strong correlation was found between ICU CAMEO III and both TISS-C (ρ = .822, P < .001) and PRISM III (ρ = .607, P < .001) scores, and between the CAMEO complexity classifications and the PRISM III categories (ρ = .575, P = .001). Conclusion The ICU CAMEO III acuity tool and CAMEO complexity classifications are valid measures of patient acuity and nursing cognitive workload compared with PRISM III and TISS-C in academic children’s hospitals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.