No abstract

SummaryBrrc.kground: Guidelines for the use of telemetry in hospitalized patients have been proposed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC). However. there have been only a few studies which have investigated the usefulness of these guidelines in clinical practice.H\pof/iesis: This study assessed the role of telemetry in the decision making process outside the critical care units. M i d d s :The observational shidy, lasting 4 weeks. was conclucted in the telemetry unit ofa tertiary care teaching hospital and included 6 I male patients (age range 40-6 I years).They had been directly admitted to the telemetry unit or transferred from a critical care unit and were followed for as long as telemetry was active. Indication for telemetry and the contribution of telemetry to management decisions were assessed by ;I physician not involved in the care of the patient.Riw/r.s: Cumulative number of telemetry days was 379 with ii mean o f 6 2 days per patient. Total number oftelemetry events was 297. According to the ACC classification. 14 patients (22.9%) had class l indication, 2 l patients (34.4%) had clnss II indication, and 26 patients (42.6%) had class 111 indication. Telemetry events were seen in 18.2% of class I patients, in 39.7% of class I1 patients, and in 42.1%-of class 111 patients. Only 12 telemetry events (4%)) resulted in patient management. with none belonging to class Ill.Conc~lusinti: Telemetry findings in patients outside the critical care units are not usually responsible for major therapeutic changes. The value of telemetry in such patients may be overrated.

Quality of housing has been shown to be related to health outcomes, including mental health and well-being, yet "objective" or observer-rated housing quality is rarely measured in housing intervention research. This may be due to a lack of standardized, reliable, and valid housing quality instruments. The objective of this research was to develop and validate the Observer-Rated Housing Quality Scale (OHQS) for use in a multisite trial of a "housing first" intervention for homeless individuals with mental illness. A list of 79 housing unit, building, and neighborhood characteristics was generated from a review of the relevant literature and three focus groups with consumers and housing service providers. The characteristics were then ranked by 47 researchers, consumers, and service providers on perceived importance, generalizability, universality of value, and evidence base. Items were then drafted, scaled (five points, half values allowed), and pretested in seven housing units and with seven raters using cognitive interviewing techniques. The draft scale was piloted in 55 housing units in Toronto and Winnipeg, Canada. Items were rated independently in each unit by two trained research assistants and a housing expert. Data were analyzed using classical psychometric approaches and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for inter-rater reliability. The draft scale consisted of 34 items assessing three domains: the unit, the building, and the neighborhood. Five of 18 unit items and 3 of 7 building items displayed ceiling or floor effects and were adjusted accordingly. Internal consistency was very good (Cronbach's alpha=0.90 for the unit items, 0.80 for the building items, and 0.92 total (unit and building)). Percent agreement ranged from 89 to 100 % within one response scale value and 67 to 91 % within one half scale value. Inter-rater reliability was also good (ICCs were 0.87 for the unit, 0.85 for the building, and 0.93 for the total scale). Three neighborhood items (e.g., distance to transit) were found to be most efficiently rated using publicly available information. The physical quality of housing can be reliably rated by trained but nonexpert raters using the OHQS. The tool has potential for improved measurement in housing-related health research, including addressing the limitations of self-report, and may also enable documenting the quality of housing that is provided by publicly funded housing programs. Adair is with the

IntroductionDo not resuscitate (DNR) decision making is an integral component of emergency medicine practice. There is a paucity of data, protocols and guidelines regarding the perceptions and barriers that are involved in the interactions among healthcare professionals, patients and their caregivers regarding DNR decision making. The aim of this study is, therefore, to explore the perceptions and factors influencing DNR decision making in the emergency department and to evaluate the use of a context-based protocol for DNR decision making.Methods and analysisThis will be a sequential mixed method study beginning with qualitative research involving in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patient family members and focus group discussion with healthcare professionals. The consensual qualitative approach will be used to perform a thematic analysis to the point of saturation. The expected outcome will be to identify key themes that suggest perceptions and factors involved in DNR decision making. After piloting, the derived protocol will then be used with a different group of individuals (150 healthcare professionals) who meet the eligibility criteria in a quantitative cross-sectional study with universal sampling. Data will be analysed using NVIVO in the qualitative phase and SPSS V.19 in the quantitative phase. The study findings will support the development of a standardised protocol for DNR decision making for healthcare professionals in the emergency department.Ethics and disseminationThe proposal was reviewed by the ethics review committee (ERC) of the institution (ERC # 2020-1551-7193). The project is an institution SEED grant recipient PF139/0719. The results will be disseminated among participants, patient communities and healthcare professionals in the institution through seminars, presentations, brochures and emails. The findings will be published in a highly accessed peer-reviewed medical journal and will be presented at international conferences.