Clinician Perspectives on Continuous Monitor Use in a Children's Hospital: A Qualitative Study.

Q1 Nursing Hospital pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1542/hpeds.2023-007638
Amanda C Schondelmeyer, Hadley Sauers-Ford, Sara M Touzinsky, Patrick W Brady, Maria T Britto, Matthew J Molloy, Jeffrey M Simmons, Maria M Cvach, Samir S Shah, Lisa M Vaughn, James Won, Kathleen E Walsh
{"title":"Clinician Perspectives on Continuous Monitor Use in a Children's Hospital: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Amanda C Schondelmeyer, Hadley Sauers-Ford, Sara M Touzinsky, Patrick W Brady, Maria T Britto, Matthew J Molloy, Jeffrey M Simmons, Maria M Cvach, Samir S Shah, Lisa M Vaughn, James Won, Kathleen E Walsh","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2023-007638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Variation in continuous cardiopulmonary monitor (cCPM) use across children's hospitals suggests preference-based use. We sought to understand how clinical providers make decisions to use cCPMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structed interviews with clinicians (nurses, respiratory therapists [RTs], and resident and attending physicians) from 2 hospital medicine units at a children's hospital. The interview guide employed patient cases and open-ended prompts to elicit information about workflows and decision-making related to cCPM, and we collected basic demographic information about participants. We used an inductive approach following thematic analysis to code transcripts and create themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 5 nurses, 5 RTs, 7 residents, and 7 attending physicians. We discovered that clinicians perceive a low threshold for starting cCPM, and this often occurred as a default action at admission. Clinicians thought of cCPMs as helping them cope with uncertainty. Despite acknowledging considerable flaws in how cCPMs were used, they were perceived as a low-risk intervention. Although RNs and RTs were most aware of the patient's current condition and number of alarms, physicians decided when to discontinue monitors. No structured process for identifying when to discontinue monitors existed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We concluded that nurses, physicians, and RTs often default to cCPM use and lack a standardized process for identifying when cCPM should be discontinued. Interventions aiming to reduce monitor use will need to account for or target these factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"649-657"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287064/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2023-007638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Variation in continuous cardiopulmonary monitor (cCPM) use across children's hospitals suggests preference-based use. We sought to understand how clinical providers make decisions to use cCPMs.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structed interviews with clinicians (nurses, respiratory therapists [RTs], and resident and attending physicians) from 2 hospital medicine units at a children's hospital. The interview guide employed patient cases and open-ended prompts to elicit information about workflows and decision-making related to cCPM, and we collected basic demographic information about participants. We used an inductive approach following thematic analysis to code transcripts and create themes.

Results: We interviewed 5 nurses, 5 RTs, 7 residents, and 7 attending physicians. We discovered that clinicians perceive a low threshold for starting cCPM, and this often occurred as a default action at admission. Clinicians thought of cCPMs as helping them cope with uncertainty. Despite acknowledging considerable flaws in how cCPMs were used, they were perceived as a low-risk intervention. Although RNs and RTs were most aware of the patient's current condition and number of alarms, physicians decided when to discontinue monitors. No structured process for identifying when to discontinue monitors existed.

Conclusions: We concluded that nurses, physicians, and RTs often default to cCPM use and lack a standardized process for identifying when cCPM should be discontinued. Interventions aiming to reduce monitor use will need to account for or target these factors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童医院临床医生对连续监护仪使用的看法:定性研究。
背景和目的:儿童医院在使用连续心肺监护仪(cCPM)方面存在差异,这表明使用心肺监护仪是有偏好的。我们试图了解临床医疗人员是如何决定使用连续心肺监测仪的:我们采用半结构化访谈的方式对一家儿童医院 2 个内科病房的临床医生(护士、呼吸治疗师 [RT]、住院医师和主治医师)进行了定性研究。访谈指南采用了患者案例和开放式提示,以获取与 cCPM 相关的工作流程和决策信息,我们还收集了参与者的基本人口统计学信息。我们采用归纳法进行主题分析,对记录誊本进行编码并创建主题:我们采访了 5 名护士、5 名 RT、7 名住院医师和 7 名主治医师。我们发现,临床医生认为开始 cCPM 的门槛较低,这通常是入院时的默认操作。临床医生认为 cCPM 可以帮助他们应对不确定性。尽管临床医生承认 cCPM 在使用过程中存在很多缺陷,但他们认为 cCPM 是一种低风险的干预措施。尽管护士和 RTs 最了解患者的当前状况和警报次数,但何时停用监护仪仍由医生决定。目前还没有确定何时停用监护仪的结构化流程:我们得出结论:护士、医生和 RT 经常默认使用 cCPM,但缺乏一个标准化流程来确定何时应停用 cCPM。旨在减少监护仪使用的干预措施需要考虑或针对这些因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hospital pediatrics
Hospital pediatrics Nursing-Pediatrics
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
204
期刊最新文献
Testing and Treatment Thresholds for Pediatric Pneumonia in the Emergency Department. It's More Complicated Than Interpreter Use: Improving Care for Non-English-Speaking Families. Factors Associated With Nirsevimab Uptake in Healthy Newborns. Nirsevimab Administration During the Birth Hospitalization. Extravasation Identification and Management in Neonates and Pediatrics: A Cross Sectional Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1