Background: Cardiac output measurements may inform diagnosis and provide guidance of therapeutic interventions in patients with hemodynamic instability. The FloTrac™ algorithm uses uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis to estimate cardiac output. Recently, a new version of the algorithm has been developed. The aim was to assess the agreement between FloTrac™ and routinely performed cardiac output measurements obtained by critical care ultrasonography in patients with circulatory shock.Methods: A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary hospital from June 2016 to January 2017. Adult critically ill patients with circulatory shock were eligible for inclusion. Cardiac output was measured simultaneously using FloTrac™ with a fourth-generation algorithm (COAP) and critical care ultrasonography (COCCUS). The strength of linear correlation of both methods was determined by the Pearson coefficient. Bland-Altman plot and four-quadrant plot were used to track agreement and trending ability.Result: Eighty-nine paired cardiac output measurements were performed in 17 patients during their first 24 h of admittance. COAP and COCCUS had strong positive linear correlation (r2 = 0.60, p < 0.001). Bias of COAP and COCCUS was 0.2 L min-1 (95% CI - 0.2 to 0.6) with limits of agreement of - 3.6 L min-1 (95% CI - 4.3 to - 2.9) to 4.0 L min-1 (95% CI 3.3 to 4.7). The percentage error was 65.6% (95% CI 53.2 to 77.3). Concordance rate was 64.4%.Conclusions: In critically ill patients with circulatory shock, there was disagreement and clinically unacceptable trending ability between values of cardiac output obtained by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis and critical care ultrasonography.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02912624, registered on September 23, 2016.
Abstract Background: Children and adolescents in mental healthcare often perceive their care needs and necessary treatment differently from their clinicians. As such discordance between young patients and clinicians may obstruct treatment adherence and compromise treatment outcomes, it is important to understand the factors associated with it. We therefore investigated the factors associated with patient–clinician discordance with regard to care needs in various areas of functioning. Methods: A cross-sectional study involving 244 children/adolescents aged 6–18 participating with their clinicians in treatment at a specialized mental healthcare center. As a previous study conducted by our research group had found the greatest patient–clinician discordance in three CANSAS care needs—“mental health problems,” “information regarding diagnosis and/or treatment,” and “making and/or keeping friends”—we used univariable and multivariable statistics to investigate the factors associated with discordance regarding these three care needs. Results: patient–clinician discordance on the three CANSAS items was associated with child, parent, and family/social-context factors. Three variables were significant in each of the three final multivariable models: dangerous behavior towards self (child level); severity of psychiatric problems of the parent (parent level); and growing up in a single-parent household (family/social-context level). Conclusions: To deliver treatment most effectively and to prevent drop-out, it is important during diagnostic assessment and treatment planning to address the patient’s care needs at all three levels: child, parent and family/social context.
Objectives There is a broad call for change towards € new era' quality systems in healthcare, in which the focus lies on learning and improving. A promising way to establish this in general practice care is to combine audit and feedback with peer group discussion. However, it is not known what different stakeholders think of this type of quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the opinions of different stakeholders in general practice on peer discussion of audit and feedback and on its opportunities and risks. Second, their thoughts on transparency versus accountability, regarding this system, were studied. Design An exploratory qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm. Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions were held and coded using thematic analysis. Included stakeholders were general practitioners (GP), patients, professional organisations and insurance companies. Setting General practice in the Netherlands. Participants 22 participants were purposively sampled for eight interviews and two focus group discussions. Results Three main opportunities of peer discussion of audit and feedback were identified: deeper levels of reflection on data, adding context to numbers and more ownership; and three main risks: handling of unwilling colleagues, lacking a safe group and the necessity of patient involvement. An additional theme concerned disagreement on the amount of transparency to be offered: insurance companies and patients advocated for complete transparency on data and improvement of outcomes, while GPs and professional organisations urged to restrict transparency to giving insight into the process. Conclusions Peer discussion of audit and feedback could be part of a change movement, towards a quality system based on learning and trust, that is initiated by the profession. Creating a safe learning environment and involving patients is key herein. Caution is needed when complete transparency is asked, since it could jeopardise practitioners' reflection and learning in safety.
