Search results for: PubMed

Authors: Victor Kang, Sirene Bellahnid, Amy Al-Simaani

Abstract:

Efficient documentation and completion of clerical tasks are pillars of efficient patient-centered care in acute settings such as the emergency department (ED). Medical scribes aid physicians with documentation, navigation of electronic health records, results gathering, and communication coordination with other healthcare teams. However, the use of medical scribes is not widespread, with some hospitals even continuing to discontinue their programs. One reason for this could be the lack of studies that have outlined concrete improvements in efficiency and patient and provider satisfaction in emergency departments before and after incorporating scribes. Methods: We conducted a review of the literature concerning the implementation of a medical scribe program and emergency department performance. For this review, a narrative synthesis accompanied by textual commentaries was chosen to present the selected papers. PubMed was searched exclusively. Initially, no date limits were set, but seeing as the electronic medical record was officially implemented in Canada in 2013, studies published after this date were preferred as they provided insight into the interplay between its implementation and scribes on quality improvement. Results: Throughput, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness were the most commonly used parameters in evaluating scribes in the Emergency Department. Important throughput metrics, specifically door-to-doctor and disposition time, were significantly decreased in emergency departments that utilized scribes. Of note, this was shown to be the case in community hospitals, where the burden of documentation and clerical tasks would fall directly upon the attending physician. Academic centers differ in that they rely heavily on residents and students; so the implementation of scribes has been shown to have limited effect on these metrics. However, unique to academic centers was the provider’s perception of incrased time for teaching was unique to academic centers. Consequently, providers express increased work satisfaction in relation to time spent with patients and in teaching. Patients, on the other hand, did not demonstrate a decrease in satisfaction in regards to the care that was provided, but there was no significant increase observed either. Of the studies we reviewed, one of the biggest limitations was the lack of significance in the data. While many individual studies reported that medical scribes in emergency rooms improved relative value units, patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and increased number of patients seen, there was no statistically significant improvement in the above criteria when compiled in a systematic review. There is also a clear publication bias; very few studies with negative results were published. To prove significance, data from more emergency rooms with scribe programs would need to be compiled which also includes emergency rooms who did not report noticeable benefits. Furthermore, most data sets focused only on scribes in academic centers. Conclusion: Ultimately, the literature suggests that while emergency room physicians who have access to medical scribes report higher satisfaction due to lower clerical burdens and can see more patients per shift, there is still variability in terms of patient and provider satisfaction. Whether or not this variability exists due to differences in training (in-house trainees versus contractors), population profile (adult versus pediatric), setting (academic versus community), or which shifts scribe work cannot be determined based on the studies that exist. Ultimately, more scribe programs need to be evaluated to determine whether these variables affect outcomes and prove whether scribes significantly improve emergency room efficiency.

Keywords: emergency medicine, medical scribe, scribe, documentation

Procedia PDF Downloads 80

Authors: Hilary Modir, Kyle Dutton, Michelle Swab, Shabnam Asghari

Abstract:

Since its emergence, the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 have been documented in the literature. However, the majority are case reports with significant limitations in appraisal quality, thus leaving the role of dermatological manifestations of COVID-19 erroneously underexplored. The primary aim of this review was to systematically examine clinical patterns of dermatological manifestations as reported in the literature. This study was designed as a systematic review of case reports. The inclusion criteria consisted of all published reports and articles regarding COVID-19 in English, from September 1st, 2019, until June 22nd, 2020. The population consisted of confirmed cases of COVID-19 with associated cutaneous signs and symptoms. Exclusion criteria included research in planning stages, protocols, book reviews, news articles, review studies, and policy analyses. With the collaboration of a librarian, a search strategy was created consisting of a mixture of keyword terms and controlled vocabulary. Electronic databases searched were MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, PsycINFO, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, Prospero, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, U.S. Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, AAD Registry, OSF preprints, SSRN, MedRxiV and BioRxiV. The study selection featured an initial pre-screening of titles and abstracts by one independent reviewer. Results were verified by re-examining a random sample of 1% of excluded articles. Eligible studies progressed for full-text review by two calibrated independent reviewers. Covidence was used to store and extract data, such as citation information and findings pertaining to COVID-19 and cutaneous signs and symptoms. Data analysis and summarization methodology reflect the framework proposed by PRISMA and recommendations set out by Cochrane and Joanna Brigg’s Institute for conducting systematic reviews. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s level of evidence was used to appraise the quality of individual studies. The literature search revealed a total of 1221 articles. After the abstract and full-text screening, only 95 studies met the eligibility criteria, proceeding to data extraction. Studies were divided into 58% case reports and 42% series. A total of 833 manifestations were reported in 723 confirmed COVID-19 cases. The most frequent lesions were 23% maculopapular, 15% urticarial and 13% pseudo-chilblains, with 46% of lesions reporting pruritus, 16% erythema, 14% pain, 12% burning sensation, and 4% edema. The most common lesion locations were 20% trunk, 19.5% lower limbs, and 17.7% upper limbs. The time to resolution of lesions was between one and twenty-one days. In conclusion, over half of the reported cutaneous presentations in COVID-19 positive patients were maculopapular, urticarial and pseudo-chilblains, with the majority of lesions distributed to the extremities and trunk. As this review’s sample size only contained COVID-19 confirmed cases with skin presentations, it becomes difficult to deduce the direct relationship between skin findings and COVID-19. However, it can be correlated that acute onset of skin lesions, such as chilblains-like, may be associated with or may warrant consideration of COVID-19 as part of the differential diagnosis.

Keywords: COVID-19, cutaneous manifestations, cutaneous signs, general dermatology, medical dermatology, Sars-Cov-2, skin and infectious disease, skin findings, skin manifestations

Procedia PDF Downloads 165

Authors: Tianqiao Zhang, Ye Tian, Yanliang Yin, Yichao Tian, Suzhai Tian, Weige Sun, Shuhui Gong, Limei Tang, Ruoliang Tang

Abstract:

Introduction: Healthcare workers, especially the nurses all over the world, are highly vulnerable to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), experiencing high rates of neck, shoulder, and low back injuries, due to the unfavorable working conditions. To reduce WMSDs among nursing personnel, many workplace interventions have been developed and implemented. Unfortunately, the ongoing Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has posed great challenges to the ergonomic practices and interventions in healthcare facilities, particularly the hospitals, since current Covid-19 mitigation measures, such as social distancing and working remotely, has substantially minimized in-person gatherings and trainings. On the other hand, hospitals throughout the world have been short-staffed, resulting in disturbance of shift scheduling and more importantly, the increased job demand among the available caregivers, particularly the doctors and nurses. With the latest development in communication technology, remote intervention measures have been developed as an alternative, without the necessity of in-person meetings. The Omaha System (OS) is a standardized classification system for nursing practices, including a problem classification system, an intervention system, and an outcome evaluation system. This paper describes the development of an OS-based ergonomic intervention program. Methods: First, a comprehensive literature search was performed among worldwide electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), between journal inception to May 2020, resulting in a total of 1,418 scientific articles. After two independent screening processes, the final knowledge pool included eleven randomized controlled trial studies to develop the draft of the intervention program with Omaha intervention subsystem as the framework. After the determination of sample size needed for statistical power and the potential loss to follow-up, a total of 94 nurses from eight clinical departments agreed to provide written, informed consent to participate in the study, which were subsequently assigned into two random groups (i.e., intervention vs. control). A subgroup of twelve nurses were randomly selected to participate in a semi-structured interview, during which their general understanding and awareness of musculoskeletal disorders and potential interventions was assessed. Then, the first draft was modified to reflect the findings from these interviews. Meanwhile, the tentative program schedule was also assessed. Next, two rounds of consultation were conducted among experts in nursing management, occupational health, psychology, and rehabilitation, to further adjust and finalize the intervention program. The control group had access to all the information and exercise modules at baseline, while an interdisciplinary research team was formed and supervised the implementation of the on-line intervention program through multiple social media groups. Outcome measures of this comparative study included biomechanical load assessed by the Quick Exposure Check and stresses due to awkward body postures. Results and Discussion: Modification to the draft included (1) supplementing traditional Chinese medicine practices, (2) adding the use of assistive patient handling equipment, and (3) revising the on-line training method. Information module should be once a week, lasting about 20 to 30 minutes, for a total of 6 weeks, while the exercise module should be 5 times a week, each lasting about 15 to 20 minutes, for a total of 6 weeks.

Keywords: ergonomic interventions, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), omaha system, nurses, Covid-19

Procedia PDF Downloads 144