SUMMARYA 27-year-old woman with chest pain was admitted for elevated troponin levels. Troponin remained mildly elevated upon repeat testing, and a review of the medical record revealed that she had had an elevated troponin level in the past. She had a cardiac catheterisation that revealed angiographically normal coronary arteries. Repeat troponin testing with and without ethylene glycol revealed a negative troponin level after addition of ethylene glycol, suggesting antibodies were interfering with the assay. BACKGROUND
Background: Previous work has found that clinical care for a variety of health conditions varies depending upon the mental health status of the patient. Sepsis, a condition with an algorithm-driven care plan, has not yet been investigated. This study sought to determine if disparities in care exist for people with mental illness and suspected sepsis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective medical records review of patients presenting to the emergency department with a clinical suspicion of sepsis from June 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018. Extracted data included clinical care decisions consistent with the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) national guidelines and information from the problem list and encounter notes about the presence of mental illness. Results: Seven hundred ninety-eight patient encounters were included in the study. Sixty-eight percent of these encounters had care that met the 3-hour SEP-1 bundle guidelines. The presence of a psychiatric diagnosis was not significantly related to failure of SEP-1 criteria, χ 2 (1)=1.01, P=0.315. Conclusion:This study showed no differences in clinical decision-making for patients with sepsis and a psychiatric diagnosis of mental illness. The presence of objective guidelines may have lessened the potential role of biases among clinicians toward patients with mental illness.
Background: The growing regulatory and hospital focus on patient experience and patient satisfaction is evidenced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implementation of Hospital Value-Based Purchasing and by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones. However, there is a paucity of data examining the education and evaluation of emergency medicine residents’ nontechnical skills (eg, communication and situational awareness) as they relate to patient interactions. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate a nontechnical skills rating tool with emergency medicine residents during their interactions with patients. Methods: As part of the educational initiative, the authors consulted with a hospitality training and measurement company, the Freeman Group, that developed and trained faculty on the use of an observational tool to assess physicians’ nontechnical skills. Nontechnical skills were assessed in 4 domains designated by the acronym C.A.R.E.: connect with the patient, adjust the interaction to meet patient needs, resolve patient requests, and empathize with the patient. Faculty observed emergency medicine residents as they interacted clinically with patients in the emergency department and rated them on a binary scale: acceptable or unacceptable. Results: Thirty-four of 36 residents were observed. Our study demonstrates that the residents performed very well on domains of empathy, adjusting to patients’ knowledge, and resolving requests. However, residents’ abilities to customize conversations to patients (eg, addressing patients appropriately and establishing and maintaining rapport) were rated as unacceptable 31% of the time. Conclusion: Overall, residents performed well on most aspects of nontechnical skills observed during their interactions with patients. However, even when residents were mindful of faculty observing nontechnical skills, they performed unacceptably in their communication with patients in approximately one-third of the interactions. This study provides important insight into nontechnical skill areas that may be influenced with intervention to improve patient interactions, and ultimately, influence patient satisfaction.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.