Browsing by Author "D'Cruz, Lynn"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Electric Scooters (e-scooters): Assessing the Threat to Public Health and Safety in Setting Policies: Assessing e-scooter policies
    (Society of Practitioners of Health Impact Assessment, 2020-11) Comer, Amber R.; Apathy, Nate; Waite, Carly; Bestmann, Zoe; Bradshaw, Jacob; Burchfield, Emily; Harmon, Brittany; Legg, Rebekah; Meyer, Star; O'Brien, Patrick; Sabec, Micha; Sayeed, Jami; Weaver, Alexis; D'Cruz, Lynn; Bartlett, Stephanie; Marchand, McKenzi; Zepeda, Isabel; Endri, Katelyn; Finnell, John T.; Grannis, Shaun; Silverman, Ross D.; Embi, Peter J.; Health Sciences, School of Health and Human Sciences
    Objective: To determine self-reported incidences of health and safety hazards among persons who ride rentable electric scooters (e-scooters), knowledge of e-scooter laws, and attitudes and perceptions of the health and safety of e-scooter usage. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of n= 561 e-scooter riders and non-riders was conducted during June of 2019. Results: Almost half of respondents (44%) report that e-scooters pose a threat to the health and safety of riders. Riders and non-riders disagree regarding the hazards that e-scooters pose to pedestrians. Among riders, 15% report crashing or falling off an e-scooter. Only 2.5% of e-scooter riders self-report that they always wear a helmet while riding. Conclusions: E-scooter riders report substantial rates of harmful behavior and injuries. Knowledge of e-scooter laws is limited, and e-scooters introduce threats to the health and safety of riders, pedestrians on sidewalks, and automobile drivers. Enhanced public health interventions are needed to educate about potential health risks and laws associated with e-scooter use and to ensure health in all policies. Additionally, greater consideration should be given to public health, safety, and injury prevention when passing relevant state and local e-scooter laws.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Indiana Medical Resident’s Knowledge of Surrogate Decision Making Laws
    (Sage, 2022-07) Bartlett, Stephanie; Fettig, Lyle P.; Baenziger, Peter H.; DiOrio, Eliana N.; Herget, Kayla M.; D'Cruz, Lynn; Coughlin, Johanna R.; Lake, Mikaela; Truong, Amy; Comer, Amber R.; Health Sciences, School of Health and Human Sciences
    Introduction During the care of incapacitated patients, physicians, and medical residents discuss treatment options and gain consent to treat through healthcare surrogates. The purpose of this study is to ascertain medical residents’ knowledge of healthcare consent laws, application during clinical practice, and appraise the education residents received regarding surrogate decision making laws. Methods Beginning in February of 2018, 35 of 113 medical residents working with patients within Indiana completed a survey. The survey explored medical residents’ knowledge of health care surrogate consent laws utilized in Indiana hospitals and Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals via clinical vignettes. Results Only 22.9% of medical residents knew the default state law in Indiana did not have a hierarchy for settling disputes among surrogates. Medical residents correctly identified which family members could participate in medical decisions 86% of the time. Under the Veterans Affairs surrogate law, medical residents correctly identified appropriate family members or friends 50% of the time and incorrectly acknowledged the chief decision makers during a dispute 30% of the time. All medical residents report only having little or some knowledge of surrogate decision making laws with only 43% having remembered receiving surrogate decision making training during their residency. Conclusions These findings demonstrate that medical residents lack understanding of surrogate decision making laws. In order to ensure medical decisions are made by the appropriate surrogates and patient autonomy is upheld, an educational intervention is required to train medical residents about surrogate decision making laws and how they are used in clinical practice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scoring inconsistencies between neurologists and emergency room nurses
    (Frontiers, 2022) Comer, Amber R.; Templeton, Evan; Glidden, Michelle; Bartlett, Stephanie; D'Cruz, Lynn; Nemati, Donya; Zabel, Samantha; Slaven, James E.
    BACKGROUND: Little is known about the consistency of initial NIHSS scores between neurologists and RNs in clinical practice. METHODS: A cohort study of patients with a code stroke was conducted at an urban academic Primary Stroke Center in the Midwest between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019 to determine consistency in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Scores (NIHSS) between neurologists and registered nurses (RNs). RESULTS: Among the 438 patients included in this study 65.3% (n = 286) of neurologist-RN NIHSS scoring pairs had congruent scores. One-in-three, (34.7%, n = 152) of neurologist-RN NIHSS scoring pairs had a clinically meaningful scoring difference of two points or greater. Higher NIHSS (p ≤ 0.01) and aphasia (p ≤ 0.01) were each associated with incongruent scoring between neurologist and emergency room RN pairs. CONCLUSIONS: One-in-three initial NIHSS assessed by both a neurologist and RN had a clinically meaningful score difference between providers. More severe stroke, as indicated by a higher NIHSS was associated with scoring inconsistency between neurologist-RN pairs. Subjective scoring measures, especially those involving a patient having aphasia, was associated with greater score incongruency. Score differences may be attributed to differences in NIHSS training requirements between neurologists and RNs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Palliative and End-of-Life Care After Severe Stroke.
    (Elsevier, 2022-05) Comer, Amber R.; Williams, Linda S.; Bartlett, Stephanie; D'Cruz, Lynn; Endris, Katlyn; Marchand, McKenzie; Zepeda, Isabel; Toor, Sumeet; Waite, Carly; Jawed, Areeba; Holloway, Robert; Creutzfeldt, Claire J.; Slaven, James E.; Torke, Alexia M.; Health Sciences, School of Health and Human Sciences
    Background and Objectives The distinct illness trajectory after acute ischemic stroke demands a better understanding of the utilization of palliative care consultations (PCC) for this patient cohort. This study sought to determine the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes associated with PCC for patients hospitalized with severe ischemic stroke. Methods This multicenter cohort study was conducted at four hospitals (2 comprehensive and 2 primary stroke centers) between January, 2016 and December, 2019. We included all patients with a discharge diagnosis of ischemic stroke and an initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) of 10 or greater. We compared patient sociodemographic, clinical and care characteristics as well as hospital outcomes between patients who did and did not receive PCC. Results The study included 1297 patients hospitalized with severe ischemic stroke. PCC occurred for 20% of all patients and this proportion varied across institutions from 11.9% to 43%. Less than half (43%) of patients who died in the hospital. In multivaraible analysis, PCC was less likely in female patients (OR .76, 95% CI .59, .99, P=0.04) but more likely in patients with higher NIHSS (OR1.95, 95% CI 1,13, 3.37, P=0.02). Patients with PCC had higher rates of moving to a plan focused on comfort measures (CMO) (P<0.01) and removal of artificial nutrition as part of a move to CMO (P<0.01). In a sub analysis of patients who died in the hospital and received PCC, patients who died on or before hospital day 3 were less likely to receive PCC than patients who died on or after hospital day 4 (24% v. 51%) (P=<0.01). Conclusions Most patients with severe stroke do not receive PCC, even among those who experience in-hospital death. The results of this study indicate there are missed opportunities for PCC to help reduce suffering after severe stroke.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Physician self-reported use of empathy during clinical practice
    (Sage, 2022) Comer, Amber; Fettig, Lyle; Bartlett, Stephanie; D'Cruz, Lynn; Umythachuk, Nina; Health Sciences, School of Health and Human Sciences
    Objectives The use of empathy during clinical practice is paramount to delivering quality patient care and is important for understanding patient concerns at both the cognitive and affective levels. This study sought to determine how and when physicians self-report the use of empathy when interacting with their patients. Methods A cross-sectional survey of 76 physicians working in a large urban hospital was conducted in August of 2017. Physicians were asked a series of questions with Likert scale responses as well as asked to respond to open-ended questions. Results All physicians self-report that they always (69%) or usually (29.3%) use empathic statements when engaging with patients. 93.1% of physicians believe that their colleagues always (20.7%) or usually (69%) use empathic statements when communicating with patients. Nearly one-third of physicians (33%) indicated that using the words “I understand” denotes an empathic statement. Although 36% of physicians reported that they would like to receive more training or assistance about how and when to use empathy during clinical practice. Significance of Results Despite the self-reported prevalent use of empathic statements, one-third of physicians indicate a desire for more training in what empathy means and when it should be used in a clinical setting. Additionally, nearly one-third of physicians in this study reported using responses that patients may not perceive as being empathic, even when intended to be empathic. This suggests that many physicians feel uncertain about a clinical skill they believe should be used in most, if not all, encounters.