"I understood what she meant when she said '21st century medicine'": A qualitative analysis of patient responses for plans for colorectal cancer screening following a recommendation from their physician

Although physician recommendation has been significantly associated with colorectal cancer screening (CRCS), it still does not motivate all patients to get CRCS. Although improved physician recommendation for CRCS has been shown to increase patient CRCS screening, questions remain about what elements of that discussion may lead to screening. The objective of this study is to describe patients' perceptions and interpretations about their physician's recommendation for CRCS during their annual wellness exam. A subset of patients (n=51) participating in a supplement study of a behavioral intervention trial designed to increase CRCS completed a follow-up, open-ended interview two to four weeks after their annual wellness visit. Using qualitative methods, transcripts of these interviews were analyzed. Findings suggest that most patients would follow their physician's recommendation for CRCS despite not engaging in much discussion. Patients may refrain from CRCS discussion because of a commitment to CRCS, awareness of screening guidelines, and trust in physician's honesty and beneficence. Yet many patients left their wellness exams with questions, refraining because of future plans to consult with their physicians, perceived time constraints or a lack of a patient-physician relationship. If patients are leaving their wellness exams with unanswered questions, interventions should prepare physicians for patient reticence, teaching physicians how to assure patients that CRCS is a primary care activity where all questions and concerns, including cost and scheduling, may be resolved.^

Debriefing after resuscitations in a pediatric emergency department

Multiple guidelines recommend debriefing of actual resuscitations to improve clinical performance. We implemented a novel standardized debriefing program using a Debriefing In Situ Conversation after Emergent Resuscitations Now (DISCERN) tool. Following the development of the evidence-based DISCERN tool, we conducted an observational study of all resuscitations (intubation, CPR, and/or defibrillation) at a pediatric emergency department (ED) over one year. Resuscitation interventions, patient survival, and physician team leader characteristics were analyzed as predictors for debriefing. Each debriefing's participants, time duration, and content were recorded. Thematic content of debriefings was categorized by framework approach into Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) elements. There were 241 resuscitations and 63 (26%) debriefings. A higher proportion of debriefings occurred after CPR (p<0.001) or ED death (p<0.001). Debriefing participants always included an attending and nurse; the median number of staff roles present was six. Median interval (from resuscitation end to start of debriefing) & debriefing durations were 33 (IQR 15,67) and 10 minutes (IQR 5,12), respectively. Common TEAM themes included co-operation/coordination (30%), communication (22%), and situational awareness (15%). Stated reasons for not debriefing included: unnecessary (78%), time constraints (19%), or other reasons (3%). Debriefings with the DISCERN tool usually involved higher acuity resuscitations, involved most of the indicated personnel, and lasted less than 10 minutes. This qualitative tool could be adapted to other settings. Future studies are needed to evaluate for potential impacts on education, quality improvement programming, and staff emotional well-being.^