Attitudes of pediatric intensive care unit physicians towards the use of cognitive aids: a qualitative study

Australian Dentist's Knowledge and Perceptions of Factors Affecting Radiographic Interpretation

BACKGROUND

Errors of interpretation of radigraphic images, also known as interpretive errors, are a critical concern as they can have profound implications for clinical decision making. Different types of interpretive errors, including errors of omission and misdiagnosis, have been described in the literature. These errors can lead to unnecessary or harmful treat/or prolonged patient care. Understanding the nature and contributing factors of interpretive errors is important in developing solutions to minimise interpretive errors. By exploring the knowledge and perceptions of dental practitioners, this study aimed to shed light on the current understanding of interpretive errors in dentistry.

METHODS

An anonymised online questionnaire was sent to dental practitioners in New South Wales (NSW) between September 2020 and March 2022. A total of 80 valid responses were received and analysed. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis were used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

The study found that participants commonly reported interpretive errors as occurring 'occasionally', with errors of omission being the most frequently encountered type. Participants identified several factors that most likely contribute to interpretive errors, including reading a poor-quality image, lack of clinical experience and knowledge, and excessive workload. Additionally, general practitioners and specialists held different views regarding factors affecting interpretive errors.

CONCLUSION

The survey results indicate that dental practitioners are aware of the common factors associated with interpretive errors. Errors of omission were identified as the most common type of error to occur in clinical practice. The findings suggest that interpretive errors result from a mental overload caused by factors associated with image quality, clinician-related, and image interpretation. Managing and identifying solutions to mitigate these factors are crucial for ensuring accurate and timely radiographic diagnoses. The findings of this study can serve as a foundation for future research and the development of targeted interventions to enhance the accuracy of radiographic interpretations in dentistry.

Factors affecting interpretation of dental radiographs

OBJECTIVES

To identify the factors influencing errors in the interpretation of dental radiographs.

METHODS

A protocol was registered on Prospero. All studies published until May 2022 were included in this review. The search of the electronic databases spanned Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus. The quality of the studies was assessed using the MMAT tool. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted.

RESULTS

The search yielded 858 articles, of which eight papers met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. These studies assessed the factors influencing the accuracy of the interpretation of dental radiographs. Six factors were identified as being significant that affected the occurrence of interpretation errors. These include clinical experience, clinical knowledge, and technical ability, case complexity, time pressure, location and duration of dental education and training and cognitive load.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of interpretation errors has not been widely investigated in dentistry. The factors identified in this review are interlinked. Further studies are needed to better understand the extent of the occurrence of interpretive errors and their impact on the practice of dentistry.

Clinical Decision Support in the PICU: Implications for Design and Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To assess the current landscape of clinical decision support (CDS) tools in PICUs in order to identify priority areas of focus in this field.

DESIGN

International, quantitative, cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Role-specific, web-based survey administered in November and December 2020.

SUBJECTS

Medical directors, bedside nurses, attending physicians, and residents/advanced practice providers at Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Network-affiliated PICUs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The survey was completed by 109 respondents from 45 institutions, primarily attending physicians from university-affiliated PICUs in the United States. The most commonly used CDS tools were people-based resources (93% used always or most of the time) and laboratory result highlighting (86%), with order sets, order-based alerts, and other electronic CDS tools also used frequently. The most important goal providers endorsed for CDS tools were a proven impact on patient safety and an evidence base for their use. Negative perceptions of CDS included concerns about diminished critical thinking and the burden of intrusive processes on providers. Routine assessment of existing CDS was rare, with infrequent reported use of observation to assess CDS impact on workflows or measures of individual alert burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Although providers share some consensus over CDS utility, we identified specific priority areas of research focus. Consensus across practitioners exists around the importance of evidence-based CDS tools having a proven impact on patient safety. Despite broad presence of CDS tools in PICUs, practitioners continue to view them as intrusive and with concern for diminished critical thinking. Deimplementing ineffective CDS may mitigate this burden, though postimplementation evaluation of CDS is rare.

Improving Safety Recommendations Before Implementation: A Simulation-Based Event Analysis to Optimize Interventions Designed to Prevent Recurrence of Adverse Events

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric inpatients are at high risk of adverse events (AE). Traditionally, root cause analysis was used to analyze AEs and identify recommendations for change. Simulation-based event analysis (SBEA) is a protocol that systematically reviews AEs by recreating them using in situ simulated patients, to understand clinician decision making, improve error discovery, and, through guided sequential debriefing, recommend interventions for error prevention. Studies suggest that these interventions are rarely tested before dissemination. This study investigates the use of simulation to optimize recommendations generated from SBEA before implementation.

METHODS

Recommendations and interventions developed through SBEA of 2 hospital-based AEs (event A: error of commission; event B: error of detection) were tested using in situ simulation. Each scenario was repeated 8 times. Interventions were modified based on participant feedback until the error stopped occurring and data saturation was reached.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after 6 simulations for both scenarios. For scenario A, a critical error was repeated during the first 2 scenarios using the initial interventions. After modifications, errors were corrected or mitigated in the remaining 6 scenarios. For scenario B, 1 intervention, the nursing checklist, had the highest impact, decreasing average time to error detection to 6 minutes. Based on feedback from participants, changes were made to all but one of the original proposed interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Even interventions developed through improved analysis techniques, like SBEA, require testing and modification. Simulation optimizes interventions and provides opportunity to assess efficacy in real-life settings with clinicians before widespread implementation.

ABCDE cognitive aid tool in patient assessment - development and validation in a multicenter pilot simulation study

Background

The so called ABCDE approach (Airway-Breathing-Circulation-Disability-Exposure) is a golden standard of patient assessment. The efficacy of using cognitive aids (CA) in resuscitation and peri-arrest situations remains an important knowledge gap. This work aims to develop an ABCDE CA tool (CAT) and study its potential benefits in patient condition assessment.

Methods

The development of the ABCDE CAT was done by 3 rounds of modified Delphi method performed by the members of the Advanced Life Support Science and Education Committee of the European Resuscitation Council.

A pilot multicentre study on 48 paramedic students performing patient assessment in pre-post cohorts (without and with the ABCDA CAT) was made in order to validate and evaluate the impact of the tool in simulated clinical scenarios.

The cumulative number and proper order of steps in clinical assessment in simulated scenarios were recorded and the time of the assessment was measured.

Results

The Delphi method resulted in the ABCDE CAT. The use of ABCDE CAT was associated with more performed assessment steps (804: 868; OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.35, p = 0.023) which were significantly more frequently performed in proper order (220: 338; OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.02, p < 0.0001). The use of ABCDE CAT did not prolong the time of patient assessment.

Conclusion

The cognitive aid for ABCDE assessment was developed. The use of this cognitive aid for ABCDE helps paramedics to perform more procedures, more frequently in the right order and did not prolong the patient assessment in advanced life support and peri-arrest care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-020-00390-3.