Investigating the impact of brief training in decision-making on treatment escalation to intensive care using objective structured clinical examination-style scenarios.
Hisham M Riad, Adam J Boulton, Anne-Marie Slowther, Christopher Bassford
{"title":"Investigating the impact of brief training in decision-making on treatment escalation to intensive care using objective structured clinical examination-style scenarios.","authors":"Hisham M Riad, Adam J Boulton, Anne-Marie Slowther, Christopher Bassford","doi":"10.1177/17511437221105979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The decision to admit patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) is complex. Structuring the decision-making process may be beneficial to patients and decision-makers alike. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and impact of a brief training intervention on ICU treatment escalation decisions using the Warwick model- a structured decision-making framework for treatment escalation decisions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Treatment escalation decisions were assessed using Objective Structured Clinical Examination-style scenarios. Participants were ICU and anaesthetic registrars with experience of making ICU admission decisions. Participants completed one scenario, followed by training with the decision-making framework and subsequently a second scenario. Decision-making data was collected using checklists, note entries and post-scenario questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve participants were enrolled. Brief decision-making training was successfully delivered during the normal ICU working day. Following training participants demonstrated greater evidence of balancing the burdens and benefits of treatment escalation. On visual analogue scales of 0-10, participants felt better trained to make treatment escalation decisions (4.9 vs 6.8, <i>p</i> = 0.017) and felt their decision-making was more structured (4.7 vs 8.1, <i>p</i> = 0.017).Overall, participants provided positive feedback and reported feeling more prepared for the task of making treatment escalation decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that a brief training intervention is a feasible way to improve the decision-making process by improving decision-making structure, reasoning and documentation. Training was implemented successfully, acceptable to participants and participants were able to apply their learning. Further studies of regional and national cohorts are needed to determine if training benefit is sustained and generalisable.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"24 1","pages":"53-61"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9975798/pdf/10.1177_17511437221105979.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437221105979","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The decision to admit patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) is complex. Structuring the decision-making process may be beneficial to patients and decision-makers alike. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and impact of a brief training intervention on ICU treatment escalation decisions using the Warwick model- a structured decision-making framework for treatment escalation decisions.
Methods: Treatment escalation decisions were assessed using Objective Structured Clinical Examination-style scenarios. Participants were ICU and anaesthetic registrars with experience of making ICU admission decisions. Participants completed one scenario, followed by training with the decision-making framework and subsequently a second scenario. Decision-making data was collected using checklists, note entries and post-scenario questionnaires.
Results: Twelve participants were enrolled. Brief decision-making training was successfully delivered during the normal ICU working day. Following training participants demonstrated greater evidence of balancing the burdens and benefits of treatment escalation. On visual analogue scales of 0-10, participants felt better trained to make treatment escalation decisions (4.9 vs 6.8, p = 0.017) and felt their decision-making was more structured (4.7 vs 8.1, p = 0.017).Overall, participants provided positive feedback and reported feeling more prepared for the task of making treatment escalation decisions.
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a brief training intervention is a feasible way to improve the decision-making process by improving decision-making structure, reasoning and documentation. Training was implemented successfully, acceptable to participants and participants were able to apply their learning. Further studies of regional and national cohorts are needed to determine if training benefit is sustained and generalisable.
背景:决定患者是否入住重症监护病房(ICU)是一个复杂的问题。构建决策过程可能对患者和决策者都有益。本研究的目的是利用Warwick模型(一种用于治疗升级决策的结构化决策框架)调查短期培训干预对ICU治疗升级决策的可行性和影响。方法:采用客观结构化临床检查式方案评估治疗升级决策。参与者是有ICU住院决定经验的ICU和麻醉登记员。参与者完成了一个场景,随后是决策框架的培训,随后是第二个场景。决策数据是通过核对表、笔记条目和情景后问卷收集的。结果:12名受试者入组。在ICU正常工作日成功进行了简短的决策培训。培训后,参与者展示了更多的证据来平衡治疗升级的负担和收益。在0-10的视觉模拟量表上,参与者感觉自己在做出治疗升级决策方面得到了更好的训练(4.9 vs 6.8, p = 0.017),并且感觉自己的决策更有条理(4.7 vs 8.1, p = 0.017)。总的来说,参与者提供了积极的反馈,并报告说他们对做出治疗升级决定的任务准备得更充分。结论:短期训练干预是一种可行的方法,可以通过改善决策结构、推理和文件来改善决策过程。培训成功实施,参与者可以接受,并且参与者能够应用他们的学习。需要对区域和国家队列进行进一步研究,以确定培训效益是否持续和普遍。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.