The Preservation of Cued Recall in the Acute Mentally Fatigued State: A Randomised Crossover Study

Room for improvement in patient compliance during peripheral vascular interventions

Introduction

For patients receiving Procedural Sedation and Analgesia (PSA), patient cooperation is crucial as patients remain continuously aware of operating room activity and can be asked to perform tasks such as prolonged breath-holds. This survey aimed to collect information on patient compliance with on-table instructions and its relation to periprocedural outcomes from surgeons nationwide performing peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) under PSA.

Methods

A 9-question online survey was sent to 383 vascular surgeons (including both vascular surgery attendings and trainees) across the United States through REDCap from August 30 to September 21, 2021, with responses closed on October 30, 2021. The survey response was analyzed with descriptive statistics.

Results

83 (21.6%) vascular surgeons responded to the survey, of which 67 (80.7%) were attending vascular surgeons and 16 (19.3%) were vascular surgery trainees. 41 (49.4%) respondents performed 11-20 PVI cases under PSA every month, while 31 (41.0%) respondents performed 1-10 PVI cases under PSA every month. 41 (49.4%) respondents reported that in 1-10% of their cases, additional contrast and/or radiation was administered because patient moved on the table or did not cooperate with breath holds; 25 (30.1%) reported that this occurred in 11-20% of their cases, 12 (14.5%) reported that this occurred in 21-50% of their cases and 4 (4.8%) reported that this occurred in over 50% of their cases. In such cases, the majority of respondents reported a 1-10% increase in contrast volume (59.0%), radiation dosage (62.7%), sedative/analgesia administration (46.3%) and procedural time (54.9%). Of cases being converted to general anesthesia due to inadequate patient cooperation, 35 (42.2%) respondents reported between 1-5 per month, and 3 (3.6%) respondents reported between 6-10 per month. Of cases being aborted due to inadequate patient cooperation, 25 (30.1%) respondents reported between 1-5 per month, and 1 (1.2%) respondents reported between 6-10 per month.

Conclusion

A significant fraction of PVI cases performed under PSA result in increased radiation and contrast exposure, sedative administration and procedural time due to inadequate patient cooperation. In certain cases, conversion to general anesthesia or case abortion is required. Further research should be performed to investigate strategies to minimize such adverse patient safety events.

Identification Performance During Quarantine by COVID-19 Pandemic: Influence of Emotional Variables and Sleep Quality

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions in people's lives around the globe. Sleep habits and emotional balance have been disturbed in a way that could be comparable to the havoc caused by a deep personal crisis or a traumatic experience. This unfortunate situation provides a unique context in which to study the impact of these imbalances on cognitive processes. In particular, the field of eyewitness science could benefit from these conditions, since they are also often present in crime victims, but can only be generated in the laboratory up to a certain ethical and practical limit. For several decades, eyewitness studies have tried to discover what variables affect people's ability to properly recognize faces. However, the disparity of experimental designs and the limitations of laboratory work could be contributing to the lack of consensus around several factors, such as sleep, anxiety, and depression. Therefore, the possibility of observing the influence of these agents in natural contexts could shed light on this discussion. Here, we perform simple and repeated lineups with witnesses of mock-crime, considering the conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which to some extent allow emulating the deterioration in general well-being that often afflicts crime victims. For this, 72 participants completed symptomatology scales, and watched a video portraying a staged violent episode. Subsequently, they gave testimony and participated in two lineups, in which we manipulated the presence/absence of the perpetrator, to recreate critical scenarios for the appearance of false recognitions. We found an increase in recognition errors in those individuals who did not have access to the perpetrator during the Initial lineup. Additionally, the conditions of the pandemic appear to have adversely affected the ability to witness and accurately perform lineups. These results reaffirm the need to move toward the standardization of research practices and methods for assessing testimonial evidence, especially in relation to the results of the lineups. Considering the degree of fallibility of these processes can lead to a reduction of wrongful convictions.

A multicentre cross-sectional observational study of cancer multidisciplinary teams: Analysis of team decision making

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case-complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions.

RESULTS

The full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R2  = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P < .001, adjusted R2  = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions (P = .001), providing answers (P = .001), team size (P = .007), gender balance (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions (P = .007), gender imbalance (P = .003), logistical issues (P = .001), time-workload pressures (P = .002), and time spent in the meeting (P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality (P = .001), interactions (P = .001), group size (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions (P = .001) and time-workload pressures (P = .001).

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive-catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time-workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety.

An Integrated Literature Review of Time-on-Task Effects With a Pragmatic Framework for Understanding and Improving Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Oncology Team Meetings

Multidisciplinary oncology team meetings (MDMs) or tumor boards, like other MDMs in healthcare, facilitate the incorporation of diverse clinical expertise into treatment planning for patients. Decision-making (DM) in relation to treatment planning in MDMs is carried out repeatedly until all patients put forward for discussion have been reviewed. Despite continuing financial pressure and staff shortages, the workload of cancer MDMs, and therefore meeting duration continue to increase (up to 5 h) with patients often receiving less than 2 min of team input. This begs the question as to whether the current set-up is conducive to achieve optimal DM, which these multi-specialty teams were set out to achieve in the first place. Much of what it is known, however, about the effects of prolonged cognitive activity comes from various subfields of science, leaving a gap in applied knowledge relating to complex healthcare environments. The objective of this review was thus to synthesize theory, evidence and clinical practice in order to bring the current understanding of prolonged, repeated DM into the context of cancer MDMs. We explore how and why time spent on a task affects performance in such settings, and what strategies can be employed by cancer teams to counteract negative effects and improve quality and safety. In the process, we propose a pragmatic framework of repeated DM that encompasses the strength, the process and the cost-benefit models of self-control as applied to real-world contexts of cancer MDMs. We also highlight promising research avenues for closing the research-to-practice gap. Theoretical and empirical evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that over prolonged time spent on a task, repeated DM is cognitively taxing, leading to performance detriments. This deterioration is associated with various cognitive-behavioral pitfalls, including decreased attentional capacity and reduced ability to effectively evaluate choices, as well as less analytical DM and increased reliance on heuristics. As a short to medium term improvement for ensuring safety, consistently high quality of care for all patients, and the clinician wellbeing, future research and interventions in cancer MDMs should address time-on-task effects with a combination of evidence-based cognitive strategies. We propose in this review multiple measures that range from food intake, short breaks, rewards, and mental exercises. As a long term imperative, however, capacity within cancer services needs to be reviewed as well as how best to plan workforce development and service delivery models to achieve population coverage whilst maintaining safety and quality of care. Hence the performance detriments that arise in healthcare workers as a result of the intensity (time spent on a task) and complexity of the workload require not only more research, but also wider regulatory focus and recognition.