"What is needed now is an understanding of what is the threshold of professional nurse staff and complementary staff needed to achieve optimal outcomes, and how are these levels influenced by patient nursing acuity and the education, experience, organisation and work environment of the nurse workforce." --- I agree with you. Further, this study may be approached by Park's Optimized Nurse Staffing (Sweet Spot) Estimation Theory (Park, 2017): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jan.13284. I am doing the research now.
We appreciate the concerns raised and agree that accurately presenting the findings of our study regarding patient-reported possible PICC-related complications is important. We took several steps to ensure transparency in how we presented our data. First, we were vigilant about consistently defining our outcomes as “possible complications” in all key areas of the paper including the main outcomes and conclusions section of the abstract, study measures section in the methods, main findings in the results section and in the discussion. The fact that the term “possible” or “potential” was not always used or some terms appeared to be used interchangeably was to improve readability of the article. In general, however, we were conscientious about clearly noting that we asked patients about signs or symptoms of a potential complication or adverse effect. Second, we purposefully chose to not present the data as complication rates (implying that these were actual events), but as the percentage of patients reporting a given event – thus we faithfully represented what we were told by patients during follow-up assessments. Third, we took these approaches because our primary objective was to accurately present the data collected from our patients; if something mattered enough to a patient to tell us about it, then it should matter to us as healthcare professionals regardless of internal standards that we may use to define serious medical complications. While that’s not to say that f...
We appreciate the concerns raised and agree that accurately presenting the findings of our study regarding patient-reported possible PICC-related complications is important. We took several steps to ensure transparency in how we presented our data. First, we were vigilant about consistently defining our outcomes as “possible complications” in all key areas of the paper including the main outcomes and conclusions section of the abstract, study measures section in the methods, main findings in the results section and in the discussion. The fact that the term “possible” or “potential” was not always used or some terms appeared to be used interchangeably was to improve readability of the article. In general, however, we were conscientious about clearly noting that we asked patients about signs or symptoms of a potential complication or adverse effect. Second, we purposefully chose to not present the data as complication rates (implying that these were actual events), but as the percentage of patients reporting a given event – thus we faithfully represented what we were told by patients during follow-up assessments. Third, we took these approaches because our primary objective was to accurately present the data collected from our patients; if something mattered enough to a patient to tell us about it, then it should matter to us as healthcare professionals regardless of internal standards that we may use to define serious medical complications. While that’s not to say that future work to better understand how patient reported outcomes relate to ascertainable or medically defined outcomes isn’t needed, our reporting was accurate and achieved the primary objective of this study - which was to highlight PICC-associated patient concerns and opportunities for care improvement.
Krein, et al (Patient-Reported Complications Related to Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study; Feb 2019) should be commended for sharing the results of this very interesting study. After reading it a few times, I am compelled to share the following concerns with you and the research team. The knowledge regarding PICC-related complications is indeed incomplete, but I am not sure if the main outcome(s) of your study are clearly represented to the reader.
The word “possible” is critical to correctly interpreting the results of this study. The term “complication” implies a medical diagnosis or medical confirmation – which your study attempted to do by conducting the chart reviews to confirm the presence or absence of a PICC complication, with limited success. Terms such as signs, symptoms, issues, adverse effects, and complications are used interchangeably throughout the paper to describe the patients’ self-reported experience, but without the benefit of operational definitions. These are not synonyms. Definitions help us to have a common understanding of a word or topic; they help us get on the same page when reading about an issue.
The word “possible” seems appropriate in the main outcome(s) statement, but is curiously missing from the report title. The phrase “medical complications” is used in the title of Table 2 – which clearly reports predominantly patient self-reported symptoms. The same bias is exhibited...
Krein, et al (Patient-Reported Complications Related to Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study; Feb 2019) should be commended for sharing the results of this very interesting study. After reading it a few times, I am compelled to share the following concerns with you and the research team. The knowledge regarding PICC-related complications is indeed incomplete, but I am not sure if the main outcome(s) of your study are clearly represented to the reader.
The word “possible” is critical to correctly interpreting the results of this study. The term “complication” implies a medical diagnosis or medical confirmation – which your study attempted to do by conducting the chart reviews to confirm the presence or absence of a PICC complication, with limited success. Terms such as signs, symptoms, issues, adverse effects, and complications are used interchangeably throughout the paper to describe the patients’ self-reported experience, but without the benefit of operational definitions. These are not synonyms. Definitions help us to have a common understanding of a word or topic; they help us get on the same page when reading about an issue.
The word “possible” seems appropriate in the main outcome(s) statement, but is curiously missing from the report title. The phrase “medical complications” is used in the title of Table 2 – which clearly reports predominantly patient self-reported symptoms. The same bias is exhibited in the paragraph titled “Change in patient-reported complications over time”. The study limitations clearly note that the signs and symptoms reported could not be interpreted within the context of comorbidities, nor could the complications be confirmed without evidence in the medical record.
Study titles and terms will influence the readers – who in this case are clinicians and patients. It seems irresponsible to use the term “complication” without the qualifying word “possible” to accurately represent the findings and import of this study.
Krein et al have the best of intentions as they try to develop the body of knowledge around vascular access devices. However, an analysis of self-reported symptoms should not be represented as a complication rate.
O’Reilly-Shah et al. present a novel approach to quality improvement in anaesthesia by attempting to elicit change in practice using ‘nudge theory’ derived from the field of behavioural economics [1]. Translating new research evidence into common clinical practice is an important quality issue and cheap and effective strategies to achieve this are of interest. O’Reilly-Shah et al. hypothesised that using ‘nudge-type’ interventions, an audit-feedback dashboard as well as changes to mechanical ventilator default settings, might improve anaesthesia provider compliance with this ‘lung protective’ ventilation strategy in the general operating theatre environment.
I disagree with the conclusion that the authors have drawn, that these interventions might improve clinical and financial outcomes. My disagreement stems from the clinical rationale of the intervention, which overlaps onto the assumptions built into the ‘nudge theory’ of behavioural economics itself.
Sunstein & Thaler, who have influenced large scale policy making in several countries, describe nudge theory as a form of choice architecture that “alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” [2, 3]. Their philosophy is described as “libertarian paternalism”, as it influences choices that make people better off as judged by themselves, while preserving their freedom to choose otherwise. This is presumably what the interve...
O’Reilly-Shah et al. present a novel approach to quality improvement in anaesthesia by attempting to elicit change in practice using ‘nudge theory’ derived from the field of behavioural economics [1]. Translating new research evidence into common clinical practice is an important quality issue and cheap and effective strategies to achieve this are of interest. O’Reilly-Shah et al. hypothesised that using ‘nudge-type’ interventions, an audit-feedback dashboard as well as changes to mechanical ventilator default settings, might improve anaesthesia provider compliance with this ‘lung protective’ ventilation strategy in the general operating theatre environment.
I disagree with the conclusion that the authors have drawn, that these interventions might improve clinical and financial outcomes. My disagreement stems from the clinical rationale of the intervention, which overlaps onto the assumptions built into the ‘nudge theory’ of behavioural economics itself.
Sunstein & Thaler, who have influenced large scale policy making in several countries, describe nudge theory as a form of choice architecture that “alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” [2, 3]. Their philosophy is described as “libertarian paternalism”, as it influences choices that make people better off as judged by themselves, while preserving their freedom to choose otherwise. This is presumably what the interventions chosen by O’Reilly-Shah et al. were based on, that changing ventilator defaults did not force anaesthetists to select a certain tidal volume, and audit-feedback dashboards might foster change through an increase in awareness of peer group behaviour.
Assessing preferences and costs may not be straightforward, as described in a critique of nudge theory by Berg & Davidson [3]. They argue that many choice decisions implicitly have a trade-off, and it is difficult to predict in advance which direction the balance tips. Furthermore, selecting a particular tidal volume (a continuous variable) for a particular patient during an operation might be a complex decision and not a binary option, which makes the cost or indeed the opportunity cost, of a particular choice difficult to ascertain, in economic parlance.
A study much vaunted by the New York Times Magazine demonstrating improvement in hand hygiene rates amongst clinicians after the introduction of screen savers depicting bacterial cultures from physicians’ hands, failed to be replicated in another study using a similar methodology, which suggests that audit-feedback dashboard techniques may not be robust [4, 5]. O’Reilly-Shah et al. state that most practitioners accepted the target ventilation strategy without debate but they also admit that there is equipoise in the anaesthetic literature regarding the benefit of a low-tidal volume strategy for elective surgical patients [1]. As such, the increased compliance rate might not have reflected the provider’s ‘better preference’ per se, but a trend towards the default lower tidal volume as it may not have been an important factor either way.
A better example using the authors’ approach might be the default setting of ‘pressure-controlled’ ventilation as opposed to ‘volume-controlled’ ventilation in paediatric patients undergoing general anaesthesia, to avoid the danger of delivering overtly dangerous large tidal volumes. This is sensible practice in paediatric, but in hospitals with mixed adult and paediatric populations, this may not always be appropriate. It would then represent a binary decision and the benefit would be more obvious.
References
1. O'Reilly-Shah VN, Easton GS, Jabaley CS, Lynde GC. Variable effectiveness of stepwise implementation of nudge-type interventions to improveprovider compliance with intraoperative low tidal volume ventilation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 May 18
2. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, And Happiness. New Haven : Yale University Press, 2008, p5-6.
3. Berg C, Davidson S. Nudging, calculation, and utopia, Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Vol. 1, Special Issue, 49-52, 2017
4. Dubner SJ, Levitt SD. Selling soap. The New York Times Magazine, September 24, 2006.
5. Charters M, Cheng AL, Esaki RK, Kuo AS, Neal J, Thawani JP, Chenoweth C. The impact of a screensaver in promoting hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Dec;37(10):867-8
"What is needed now is an understanding of what is the threshold of professional nurse staff and complementary staff needed to achieve optimal outcomes, and how are these levels influenced by patient nursing acuity and the education, experience, organisation and work environment of the nurse workforce." --- I agree with you. Further, this study may be approached by Park's Optimized Nurse Staffing (Sweet Spot) Estimation Theory (Park, 2017): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jan.13284. I am doing the research now.
We appreciate the concerns raised and agree that accurately presenting the findings of our study regarding patient-reported possible PICC-related complications is important. We took several steps to ensure transparency in how we presented our data. First, we were vigilant about consistently defining our outcomes as “possible complications” in all key areas of the paper including the main outcomes and conclusions section of the abstract, study measures section in the methods, main findings in the results section and in the discussion. The fact that the term “possible” or “potential” was not always used or some terms appeared to be used interchangeably was to improve readability of the article. In general, however, we were conscientious about clearly noting that we asked patients about signs or symptoms of a potential complication or adverse effect. Second, we purposefully chose to not present the data as complication rates (implying that these were actual events), but as the percentage of patients reporting a given event – thus we faithfully represented what we were told by patients during follow-up assessments. Third, we took these approaches because our primary objective was to accurately present the data collected from our patients; if something mattered enough to a patient to tell us about it, then it should matter to us as healthcare professionals regardless of internal standards that we may use to define serious medical complications. While that’s not to say that f...
Show MoreKrein, et al (Patient-Reported Complications Related to Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study; Feb 2019) should be commended for sharing the results of this very interesting study. After reading it a few times, I am compelled to share the following concerns with you and the research team. The knowledge regarding PICC-related complications is indeed incomplete, but I am not sure if the main outcome(s) of your study are clearly represented to the reader.
The word “possible” is critical to correctly interpreting the results of this study. The term “complication” implies a medical diagnosis or medical confirmation – which your study attempted to do by conducting the chart reviews to confirm the presence or absence of a PICC complication, with limited success. Terms such as signs, symptoms, issues, adverse effects, and complications are used interchangeably throughout the paper to describe the patients’ self-reported experience, but without the benefit of operational definitions. These are not synonyms. Definitions help us to have a common understanding of a word or topic; they help us get on the same page when reading about an issue.
The word “possible” seems appropriate in the main outcome(s) statement, but is curiously missing from the report title. The phrase “medical complications” is used in the title of Table 2 – which clearly reports predominantly patient self-reported symptoms. The same bias is exhibited...
Show MoreO’Reilly-Shah et al. present a novel approach to quality improvement in anaesthesia by attempting to elicit change in practice using ‘nudge theory’ derived from the field of behavioural economics [1]. Translating new research evidence into common clinical practice is an important quality issue and cheap and effective strategies to achieve this are of interest. O’Reilly-Shah et al. hypothesised that using ‘nudge-type’ interventions, an audit-feedback dashboard as well as changes to mechanical ventilator default settings, might improve anaesthesia provider compliance with this ‘lung protective’ ventilation strategy in the general operating theatre environment.
Show MoreI disagree with the conclusion that the authors have drawn, that these interventions might improve clinical and financial outcomes. My disagreement stems from the clinical rationale of the intervention, which overlaps onto the assumptions built into the ‘nudge theory’ of behavioural economics itself.
Sunstein & Thaler, who have influenced large scale policy making in several countries, describe nudge theory as a form of choice architecture that “alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” [2, 3]. Their philosophy is described as “libertarian paternalism”, as it influences choices that make people better off as judged by themselves, while preserving their freedom to choose otherwise. This is presumably what the interve...
Pages