Patient involvement in interdisciplinary bedside rounds from nursing and medical students' perceptions. A Swedish qualitative interview study.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-03 DOI:10.1111/scs.13307
Yelyzaveta Hordiienko, Cecilia Fagerström, Hafrún Rafnar Finnbogadóttir
{"title":"Patient involvement in interdisciplinary bedside rounds from nursing and medical students' perceptions. A Swedish qualitative interview study.","authors":"Yelyzaveta Hordiienko, Cecilia Fagerström, Hafrún Rafnar Finnbogadóttir","doi":"10.1111/scs.13307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient involvement in the interdisciplinary bedside round (IBR) increases care quality and safety but is influenced and perceived differently by different round participants. Nursing and medical students are still not structurally embedded in the healthcare system, and they participate in interdisciplinary bedside rounds for educational purposes. Thus, the students may give a valuable perspective on patient involvement from the 'outside view'.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to describe nursing and medical students' perceptions of patient involvement in IBRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study has a qualitative design with individual interviews. Eighteen informants were recruited with the help of gatekeepers from two sites in Sweden: a university training health clinic and a county hospital. They participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews, which were analysed with an inductive qualitative content analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Ethical issues and approval: </strong>The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Informed consent was received from all participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results yielded five categories. Two sub-themes and one theme of meaning emerged as a 'red thread' across the categories. The theme of meaning was: 'In hospital rounds, the patient is a respected guest, but with a disadvantaged \"alien status\" due to the hosts' difficult medical language and unclear routines'. Students perceive patients are not fully involved in IBRs, and the healthcare team controls this involvement due to patients' lack of knowledge and vulnerability, the hectic hospital environment, and complicated medical language. Doctors lead IBRs and encourage or discourage patient involvement and nurses act as patient advocates, supporting their involvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>According to nursing and medical students, patients are seldom involved in IBRs due to multiple interaction barriers and despite communicational facilitators. Their involvement depends on healthcare professionals. Further research should investigate other IBRs stakeholders' perspectives on patient involvement in IBRs to facilitate it.</p>","PeriodicalId":48171,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"1050-1060"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13307","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient involvement in the interdisciplinary bedside round (IBR) increases care quality and safety but is influenced and perceived differently by different round participants. Nursing and medical students are still not structurally embedded in the healthcare system, and they participate in interdisciplinary bedside rounds for educational purposes. Thus, the students may give a valuable perspective on patient involvement from the 'outside view'.

Aim: This study aimed to describe nursing and medical students' perceptions of patient involvement in IBRs.

Methods: This study has a qualitative design with individual interviews. Eighteen informants were recruited with the help of gatekeepers from two sites in Sweden: a university training health clinic and a county hospital. They participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews, which were analysed with an inductive qualitative content analysis approach.

Ethical issues and approval: The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Informed consent was received from all participants.

Results: The results yielded five categories. Two sub-themes and one theme of meaning emerged as a 'red thread' across the categories. The theme of meaning was: 'In hospital rounds, the patient is a respected guest, but with a disadvantaged "alien status" due to the hosts' difficult medical language and unclear routines'. Students perceive patients are not fully involved in IBRs, and the healthcare team controls this involvement due to patients' lack of knowledge and vulnerability, the hectic hospital environment, and complicated medical language. Doctors lead IBRs and encourage or discourage patient involvement and nurses act as patient advocates, supporting their involvement.

Conclusions: According to nursing and medical students, patients are seldom involved in IBRs due to multiple interaction barriers and despite communicational facilitators. Their involvement depends on healthcare professionals. Further research should investigate other IBRs stakeholders' perspectives on patient involvement in IBRs to facilitate it.

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
从护理和医科学生的角度看病人参与跨学科床边查房。瑞典定性访谈研究。
背景:患者参与跨学科床旁查房(IBR)可提高护理质量和安全性,但不同的查房参与者对其的影响和看法也不尽相同。护理专业和医科专业的学生仍未从结构上融入医疗保健系统,他们参与跨学科床旁查房是出于教育目的。因此,学生可以从 "外部视角 "为患者参与提供有价值的观点:本研究采用个人访谈的定性设计。在守门人的帮助下,研究人员从瑞典的两所医院(一所大学培训保健诊所和一所县级医院)招募了 18 名信息提供者。他们参加了一对一的半结构化访谈,并采用归纳式定性内容分析方法对访谈内容进行了分析:本研究已获得瑞典伦理审查机构的批准。所有参与者均已知情同意:结果:研究结果产生了五个类别。两个次主题和一个意义主题作为 "红线 "出现在各个类别中。意义主题是:"在医院查房中,病人是受人尊敬的客人,但由于主人的医学语言晦涩难懂,作息时间不明确,病人处于不利的'异类地位'"。学生们认为,由于病人缺乏知识、易受伤害、繁忙的医院环境和复杂的医学语言,病人并没有充分参与到 IBR 中,而医疗团队控制着病人的参与。医生主导 IBR,鼓励或阻止病人参与,护士则充当病人的代言人,支持病人参与:护士和医科学生认为,由于存在多种互动障碍,尽管有沟通便利因素,但患者很少参与 IBR。他们的参与取决于医护人员。进一步的研究应调查其他 IBRs 利益相关者对患者参与 IBRs 的看法,以促进其参与。
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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
5.30%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences is an established quarterly, peer reviewed Journal with an outstanding international reputation. As the official publication of the Nordic College of Caring Science, the Journal shares their mission to contribute to the development and advancement of scientific knowledge on caring related to health, well-being, illness and the alleviation of human suffering. The emphasis is on research that has a patient, family and community focus and which promotes an interdisciplinary team approach. Of special interest are scholarly articles addressing and initiating dialogue on theoretical, empirical and methodological concerns related to critical issues. All articles are expected to demonstrate respect for human dignity and accountability to society. In addition to original research the Journal also publishes reviews, meta-syntheses and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Exploring young adults' experiences with food allergy during their teenage years: A practice research study. Factors influencing job satisfaction and professional competencies in clinical practice among internationally educated nurses during the migration journey: A mixed-methods systematic review. Navigating parenthood in the face of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A qualitative exploration of partner experiences. Meaning-oriented thematic analysis grounded in reflective lifeworld research-A holistic approach for caring science research. Catalysts for change: A qualitative study of middle managers' perception of nursing professional competence in primary healthcare.
×
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