- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Jawed, Areeba"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Code Status Orders: Do the Options Matter?(Springer, 2023) Patel, Roma; Comer, Amber; Pelc, Gregory; Jawed, Areeba; Fettig, Lyle; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: Code status orders in hospitalized patients guide urgent medical decisions. Inconsistent terminology and treatment options contribute to varied interpretations. Objective: To compare two code status order options, traditional (three option) and modified to include additional care options (four option). Design: Prospective, randomized, cross-sectional survey conducted on February-March 2020. Participants were provided with six clinical scenarios and randomly assigned to the three or four option code status order. In three scenarios, participants determined the most appropriate code status. Three scenarios provided clinical details and code status and respondents were asked whether they would provide a particular intervention. This study was conducted at three urban, academic hospitals. Participants: Clinicians who routinely utilize code status orders. Of 4006 participants eligible, 549 (14%) were included. Main measures: The primary objective was consensus (most commonly selected answer) based on provided code status options. Secondary objectives included variables associated with participant responses, participant code status model preference, and participant confidence about whether their selections would match their peers. Key results: In the three scenarios participants selected the appropriate code status, there was no difference in consensus for the control scenario, and higher consensus in the three option group (p-values < 0.05) for the remaining two scenarios. In the scenarios to determine if a clinical intervention was appropriate, two of the scenarios had higher consensus in the three option group (p-values 0.018 and < 0.05) and one had higher consensus in the four option group (p-value 0.001). Participants in the three option model were more confident that their peers selected the same code status (p-value 0.0014); however, most participants (72%) preferred the four option model. Conclusions: Neither code status model led to consistent results. The three option model provided consistency more often; however, the majority of participants preferred the four option model.Item High Moral Distress in Clinicians Involved in the Care of Undocumented Immigrants Needing Dialysis in the United States(Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 2021-07-15) Jawed, Areeba; Moe, Sharon M.; Anderson, Melissa; Slaven, James E.; Wocial, Lucia De.; Saeed, Fahad; Torke, Alexia M.; Medicine, School of MedicinePurpose: To understand clinicians' perspectives on dialysis care of undocumented immigrants. Methods: A 21-item Internet-based survey using Survey Monkey® was sent to 765 physicians and nurses at a safety-net hospital located in Indianapolis, IN. Moral distress thermometer score was used to assess moral distress (MD). Participants were asked to rate their MD regarding five ethically challenging clinical situations: (1) frail patients with multiple comorbidities and poor quality of life, (2) patients with dementia, (3) a noncompliant patient with frequent emergency room (ER) visits, (4) violent patients with potential harm to others, and (5) undocumented immigrants receiving emergent dialysis only. Key Results: There were 299 of 775 participants (38.5% response rate) who completed the survey; 49.5% were physicians. Nearly half (48%) reported severe MD and 33% reported none to mild. In adjusted ordered logistic regression, females had significantly higher odds of MD (odds ratio [OR]=2.12, CI 1.03-4.33), and nurses had lower MD than fellows/residents (OR=0.14, CI 0.03-0.63). Over 70% of respondents attributed their distress to suffering of patients due to inadequate dialysis and tension between what is considered ethical and the law allows or forbids; 78% believed the patients' quality of life to be worse than those who receive routine hemodialysis. Among nephrologists, caring for these patients led to MD levels like that of dealing with a violent dialysis patient. Conclusions: Emergent-only dialysis causes significant MD in clinicians. Legal and fiscal policies need to be balanced with the ethical and moral commitments of providers for ensuring standard of care to all.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 SciencesBackground 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.