Discussions about Goals of Care in the Emergency Department: a Qualitative Study of Emergency Physicians' Opinions Using the Normalization Process Theory

Fannie Péloquin, Emile Marmen, Véronique Gélinas, Ariane Plaisance, Maude Linteau, Audrey Nolet, Nathalie Germain, Patrick Archambault
{"title":"Discussions about Goals of Care in the Emergency Department: a Qualitative Study of Emergency Physicians' Opinions Using the Normalization Process Theory","authors":"Fannie Péloquin, Emile Marmen, Véronique Gélinas, Ariane Plaisance, Maude Linteau, Audrey Nolet, Nathalie Germain, Patrick Archambault","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.26.24310500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose We explored emergency department (ED) physicians' opinions about the feasibility of leading goals of care discussions (GCD) in their daily practice. Method\nThis qualitative study was based on the Normalization Process Theory (NPT). We conducted semi-structured interviews between April and May 2018 with a convenience sample of ten emergency physicians from one academic ED (Lévis, Canada) and aimed to reach data saturation. Using a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis, two authors codified the interviews under the four NPT constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. We calculated a kappa statistic to measure inter-rater agreement. Results\nWe interviewed 10 emergency physicians. No new ideas emerged after the ninth interview and the inter-rater agreement was substantial. Fourteen themes were identified as factors influencing the feasibility of implementing GCD: (1) interpersonal communication, (2) efficiency of care, (3) anxiety generated by the discussion, (4) identification of an acute deterioration leading to the GCD, (5) meeting of the clinician, patient, and family, (6) importance of knowing the patient's goals of care before medical handover, (7) lack of training, (8) availability of protocols, (9) heterogeneous prioritization for leading GCD, (10) need to take action before patients consult in the ED, (11) need to develop education programs, (12) need for legislation, (13) need to improve the ED environment and human resources, and (14) selective systematization of GCD for patients. Conclusion\nGoals of care discussions are possible and essential with selected ED patients. Physicians identified outstanding needs to normalize GCD in their practice: education for both themselves and patients on the concept of GCD, legislative action for the systematization of GCD for patients, and proactive documentation of patients' preferences pre-ED. Patient, clinician and system-level policy-making efforts remain necessary to address these needs and ensure the normalization of GCD in emergency physicians' daily practice as suggested by clinical guidelines.","PeriodicalId":501290,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.26.24310500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose We explored emergency department (ED) physicians' opinions about the feasibility of leading goals of care discussions (GCD) in their daily practice. Method This qualitative study was based on the Normalization Process Theory (NPT). We conducted semi-structured interviews between April and May 2018 with a convenience sample of ten emergency physicians from one academic ED (Lévis, Canada) and aimed to reach data saturation. Using a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis, two authors codified the interviews under the four NPT constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. We calculated a kappa statistic to measure inter-rater agreement. Results We interviewed 10 emergency physicians. No new ideas emerged after the ninth interview and the inter-rater agreement was substantial. Fourteen themes were identified as factors influencing the feasibility of implementing GCD: (1) interpersonal communication, (2) efficiency of care, (3) anxiety generated by the discussion, (4) identification of an acute deterioration leading to the GCD, (5) meeting of the clinician, patient, and family, (6) importance of knowing the patient's goals of care before medical handover, (7) lack of training, (8) availability of protocols, (9) heterogeneous prioritization for leading GCD, (10) need to take action before patients consult in the ED, (11) need to develop education programs, (12) need for legislation, (13) need to improve the ED environment and human resources, and (14) selective systematization of GCD for patients. Conclusion Goals of care discussions are possible and essential with selected ED patients. Physicians identified outstanding needs to normalize GCD in their practice: education for both themselves and patients on the concept of GCD, legislative action for the systematization of GCD for patients, and proactive documentation of patients' preferences pre-ED. Patient, clinician and system-level policy-making efforts remain necessary to address these needs and ensure the normalization of GCD in emergency physicians' daily practice as suggested by clinical guidelines.
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
急诊科关于护理目标的讨论:利用规范化过程理论对急诊医生观点的定性研究
目的 我们探讨了急诊科(ED)医生对在日常工作中引导护理目标讨论(GCD)可行性的看法。方法这项定性研究基于规范化过程理论(NPT)。我们在 2018 年 4 月至 5 月期间对一家学术性急诊室(加拿大莱维斯)的 10 名急诊医生进行了半结构化访谈,旨在达到数据饱和。两位作者采用混合演绎和归纳的主题分析方法,在四个 NPT 构建下对访谈进行了编码:一致性、认知参与、集体行动和反思性监控。我们计算了卡帕统计量来衡量评分者之间的一致性。结果我们采访了 10 名急诊医生。在第九次访谈后,没有出现新的观点,而且评分者之间的一致性很高。有 14 个主题被确定为影响实施 GCD 可行性的因素:(1)人际沟通;(2)护理效率;(3)讨论产生的焦虑;(4)识别导致 GCD 的急性恶化;(5)临床医生、患者和家属的会面;(6)在医疗交接前了解患者护理目标的重要性;(7)缺乏培训、(10) 需要在患者到急诊室就诊前采取行动,(11) 需要制定教育计划,(12) 需要立法,(13) 需要改善急诊室环境和人力资源,(14) 有选择性地为患者提供系统化的 GCD。结论对选定的急诊室患者进行护理目标讨论是可能的,也是必要的。医生们指出了在实践中使 GCD 正常化的突出需求:对医生和患者进行有关 GCD 概念的教育,采取立法行动使患者的 GCD 系统化,以及在急诊前主动记录患者的偏好。患者、临床医生和系统层面的政策制定工作仍有必要解决这些需求,并确保急诊医生在日常工作中按照临床指南的建议将 GCD 正常化。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In-hospital stay of anemic patients (70-90 g.L-1) in the ED with/without transfusion: a single-center propensity-matched study. Accuracy of the National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2) in predicting need for time-critical treatment: Retrospective observational cohort study What strategies are used to select patients for direct admission under acute medicine services? A systematic review of the literature. Feasibility of mixed-reality telecollaboration to enhance pre-medical student shadowing education Evaluating the Impact of NHS Strikes on Patient Flow through Emergency Departments
×
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