Animal-assisted intervention services across UK intensive care units: A national service evaluation.

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of the Intensive Care Society Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI:10.1177/17511437241301000
Sam Wright, Holly McAree, Megan Hosey, Kate Tantam, Bronwen Connolly
{"title":"Animal-assisted intervention services across UK intensive care units: A national service evaluation.","authors":"Sam Wright, Holly McAree, Megan Hosey, Kate Tantam, Bronwen Connolly","doi":"10.1177/17511437241301000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Animal-assisted interventions (AAI) can provide psychological support to critical care patients during their intensive care unit (ICU) admission. However, there are currently no data on AAI services across UK ICUs. The current study therefore aims to (i) determine how many ICUs in the UK offer services, (ii) characterise available services and (iii) explore and review local documentation for service oversight.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A service evaluation comprising two parts; a national survey of UK ICU's, analysed using descriptive statistics, and review of local service oversight documents, analysed using a framework approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses from 74 sites (/242, 30.6%) were included in survey analysis. AAI services were present at 32 sites (/74, 43.2%), of which 30 offered animal-assisted activity services alone and 2 offered both animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy services. Animal-assisted activity services were typically delivered on a weekly basis, lasting 30-60 min and with dogs the sole animal employed. Concern over infection prevention and control was the most common barrier to service provision, as well as a lack of supporting evidence. Sixteen sites provided 27 oversight documents for analysis, that highlighted unique and shared responsibilities between critical care staff and animal therapy handlers, including aspects of administration, welfare and infection control.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>From a small sample, AAI services were available in less than half of ICUs. Empirical value of interventions is countered by current lack of definitive evidence of effectiveness, which should be addressed before wider implementation of AAI services and the associated resource requirements, is undertaken.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":" ","pages":"17511437241301000"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11624518/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437241301000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Animal-assisted interventions (AAI) can provide psychological support to critical care patients during their intensive care unit (ICU) admission. However, there are currently no data on AAI services across UK ICUs. The current study therefore aims to (i) determine how many ICUs in the UK offer services, (ii) characterise available services and (iii) explore and review local documentation for service oversight.

Methods: A service evaluation comprising two parts; a national survey of UK ICU's, analysed using descriptive statistics, and review of local service oversight documents, analysed using a framework approach.

Results: Responses from 74 sites (/242, 30.6%) were included in survey analysis. AAI services were present at 32 sites (/74, 43.2%), of which 30 offered animal-assisted activity services alone and 2 offered both animal-assisted activity and animal-assisted therapy services. Animal-assisted activity services were typically delivered on a weekly basis, lasting 30-60 min and with dogs the sole animal employed. Concern over infection prevention and control was the most common barrier to service provision, as well as a lack of supporting evidence. Sixteen sites provided 27 oversight documents for analysis, that highlighted unique and shared responsibilities between critical care staff and animal therapy handlers, including aspects of administration, welfare and infection control.

Conclusion: From a small sample, AAI services were available in less than half of ICUs. Empirical value of interventions is countered by current lack of definitive evidence of effectiveness, which should be addressed before wider implementation of AAI services and the associated resource requirements, is undertaken.

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
英国重症监护病房的动物辅助干预服务:一项国家服务评估。
背景:动物辅助干预(AAI)可以为重症监护患者在重症监护病房(ICU)入住期间提供心理支持。然而,目前没有关于英国icu的AAI服务的数据。因此,目前的研究旨在(i)确定英国有多少icu提供服务,(ii)描述可用服务的特征,以及(iii)探索和审查服务监督的当地文件。方法:服务评价分为两部分;对英国ICU的全国调查,使用描述性统计进行分析,并对当地服务监督文件进行审查,使用框架方法进行分析。结果:74个站点(/242,30.6%)的回复被纳入调查分析。32个站点(43.2%)提供动物辅助活动服务,其中30个站点单独提供动物辅助活动服务,2个站点同时提供动物辅助活动和动物辅助治疗服务。动物辅助活动服务通常每周提供一次,持续30-60分钟,狗是唯一使用的动物。对感染预防和控制的担忧以及缺乏支持证据是提供服务的最常见障碍。16个地点提供了27份监督文件供分析,这些文件强调了重症监护人员和动物治疗处理人员之间独特和共同的责任,包括行政、福利和感染控制方面的责任。结论:从一个小样本来看,在不到一半的icu中提供了AAI服务。干预措施的经验价值因目前缺乏明确的有效性证据而受到抵消,在更广泛地实施人工智能服务和相关资源需求之前,应解决这一问题。
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
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
期刊最新文献
Predicting risk of maternal critical care admission in Scotland: Development of a risk prediction model. Management of traumatic brain injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome-What evidence exists? A scoping review. Psychological impact of an intensive care admission for COVID-19 on patients in the United Kingdom. Exploring perspectives of supporting the process of dying, death and bereavement among critical care staff: A multidisciplinary, qualitative approach. Factors to consider when designing post-hospital interventions to support critical illness recovery: Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.
×
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