Understanding uptake of information about innovations among emergency department clinicians during the COVID‐19 pandemic

• Published in: Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open Vol. 5; no. 4; pp. e13243 - n/a
• Main Authors: Qureshi, Nabeel, Huilgol, Shreya S., Berdahl, Carl T., Cohen, Catherine C., Mendel, Peter, Fischer, Shira H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.08.2024; Wiley
• Subjects: COVID-19; Focus groups; Information sources; Leadership; United States > US
• ISSN: 2688-1152; 2688-1152
• DOI: 10.1002/emp2.13243

Objectives Early in the COVID‐19 pandemic, little was known about managing sick patients, but emergency department (ED) clinicians had to decide which treatments and care processes to adopt. Our objective was to describe how ED clinicians learned about innovations and how they assessed them for credibility during the pandemic. Methods We purposively sampled clinicians from hospital‐based EDs to conduct focus groups with ED clinicians and staff. We used both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct thematic analysis of transcripts. Results We conducted focus groups with clinicians from eight EDs across the United States. We found that ED clinicians in our sample relied on friends and colleagues or departmental and institutional leadership for information on innovations. They used social media sources when they came from credible accounts but did not directly seek information from professional societies. Clinicians reported a range of challenges to obtain credible information during the pandemic, including a fractured and changing information environment, policies misaligned across clinical sites or that conflicted with clinical knowledge, high patient volume, fear of harming patients, and untimely information. Facilitators included access to experienced and trusted colleagues and leaders and practicing at multiple EDs. Conclusion Participants cited anecdotal evidence, institutional practice, and word‐of‐mouth—rather than peer‐reviewed evidence and professional society communications—as their primary sources of information about care innovations during the early phases of the pandemic. These results underscore the importance of developing trusted local mechanisms and wider networks to identify and vet information for frontline clinicians during rapidly emerging public health emergencies.