Introduction Shared decision‐making, with an emphasis on patient autonomy, is often advised in healthcare decision‐making. However, this may be difficult to implement in emergent settings. We have previously demonstrated that when considering emergent operations for their children, parents prefer surgeon guidance as opposed to shared decision‐making. Here, we interviewed parents of paediatric patients who had undergone emergent operations to better understand parental decision‐making preferences. Methods Parents of paediatric patients who underwent surgery over the past 5 years at a University‐based, tertiary children's hospital for cancer, an emergent operation while in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were invited to complete a 60‐min semi‐structured interview. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was performed via deductive and inductive analysis. An iterative approach to thematic sampling/data analysis was used. Results Thematic saturation was achieved after 12 interviews (4 cancer, 5 NICU and 3 ECMO). Five common themes were identified: (1) recommendations from surgeons are valuable; (2) ‘lifesaving mode’: parents felt there were no decisions to be made; (3) effective ways of obtaining information about treatment; (4) shared decision‐making as a ‘dialogue’ or ‘discussion’ and (5) parents as a ‘valued voice’ to advocate for their children. Conclusions When engaging in decision‐making regarding emergent surgical procedures for their children, parents value a surgeon's recommendation. Parents felt that discussion or dialogue with surgeons defined shared decision‐making, and they believed that the opportunity to ask questions gave them a ‘valued voice’, even when they felt there were no decisions to be made. Patient or Public Contribution For this study, we interviewed parents of paediatric patients who had undergone emergent operations to better understand parental decision‐making preferences. Parents thus provided all the data for the study.

Between 2013 and 2017, the Association of SP Educators (ASPE), a global organization of educators dedicated to the work of human simulation, developed Standards of Best Practice (SOBP) for working with human role players in simulation. These individuals are known by diverse terms, including simulated or standardized patients or participants (SPs). This study had two aims: (1) to understand the ways in which the ASPE SOBP are relevant to the practices of SP educators around the world, and (2) to identify improvements to the ASPE SOBP from a global perspective. This qualitative study was undertaken between January 2020 and July 2022. Subjects consented to audio-recorded interviews. A collaborative, inductive coding approach was adopted, followed by thematic analysis, aligned with the methods described by Braun and Clarke. Themes were further updated following reflexive conversations amongst the investigators at meetings over the course of several months and were aligned with the study aims. Twelve SP educators from six continents participated. Four primary themes were identified (each with multiple subthemes): influencing SP educator practices; advancing professionalization; identifying challenges to implementation; and bridging gaps in the ASPE SOBP. A diverse group of SP educators from around the world identified the ASPE SOBP in general as relevant and applicable to their practice. The standards provided both guidance and flexibility for working with SPs in a safe, effective and quality-based way. At the same time there were challenges noted and recommendations made that can help to inform future iterations of the standards.

Sustaining a burn injury often results in a life-long recovery process. Survivors are impacted by changes in their mobility, appearance, and ability to carry out activities of daily living. In this study, we examined survivors’ accounts of their treatment and recovery in order to identify specific factors that have had significant impacts on their well-being. With this knowledge, we may be better equipped to optimize the care of burn patients. We conducted inductive, thematic analysis on transcripts of in-depth, semistructured interviews with 11 burn survivors. Participants were purposefully selected for variability in age, gender, injury size and mechanism, participation in peer support, and rurality. Survivors reported varied perceptions of care quality and provider relationships. Ongoing issues with skin and mobility continued to impact their activities of daily living. Many survivors reported that they did not have a clear understanding or realistic expectations of the recovery process. Wound care was often described as overwhelming and provoked fear for many. Even years later, trauma from burn injury can continue to evolve, creating fears and impediments to daily living for survivors. To help patients understand the realistic course of recovery, providers should focus on communicating the nature of injury and anticipated recovery, developing protocols to better identify survivors facing barriers to care, and referring survivors for further support.

Introduction The treatment and recovery from a burn injury is a long process that can affect a survivor’s appearance, mobility, daily function, and emotional wellbeing. In this study, we sought to identify various factors in survivors’ treatment and recovery process. Methods We conducted thematic analysis on transcripts of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 11 burn survivors who had been treated at a Midwest tertiary facility. Survivors were purposefully selected for variability in age, gender, injury size, injury mechanism and quality of life responses. All transcripts were coded by at least two authors. We managed coded results in MAXQda, a qualitative data management software program. Results The mean age of interviewees was 51 years (35–63 years) and time from the injury was 5.4 years (2 months to 26 years). Their burn sizes ranged from < 10% in 4 people to 70–79% in one. Participants reported varied perceptions of care quality and provider relationships from the initial hospital stay. Some recalled communication issues from the hospital throughout the long recovery process. Many used graphic terms for the unfamiliar treatment methods. Survivors reported ongoing issues with their skin and mobility that continued to impact activities of daily living even years later. Many did not have clear or realistic expectations or understanding of the recovery process. Wound care was overwhelming and provoked fear for many survivors even with formal instruction. Most participants developed different ways to treat their injuries at home. Barriers to recovery included finances, comorbidities, and environmental characteristics, including rurality. Conclusions Even years later, the burn injury can continue to evolve, create fears, and affect daily living for survivors. To help patients understand the realistic course of recovery, providers could focus on clear communication about the injury and recovery. Providers should recognize survivors with barriers who may need referrals for further support. Applicability of Research to Practice Reflecting on the subjective accounts of survivors will help identify opportunities to improve patient experiences during treatment and throughout the recovery process.