Advantages and disadvantages of between unit hand-off policies in Iranian hospitals: a qualitative study

A. Labaf, Mona Ghanbari, M. Jalili, H. Rafiemanesh, Alireza Baratloo
{"title":"Advantages and disadvantages of between unit hand-off policies in Iranian hospitals: a qualitative study","authors":"A. Labaf, Mona Ghanbari, M. Jalili, H. Rafiemanesh, Alireza Baratloo","doi":"10.1080/21548331.2019.1646060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction: Currently in emergency department (ED) of educational medical centers of Iran there are generally two models for between unit hand-off process based on the time of transferring the responsibility (during stay vs. while departure). There is no comprehensive study available to compare the policies. Thus, the present qualitative study was designed to compare these two methods of hand-off via performing interviews by specialist physicians who involving the process in the hospitals to express the advantages and disadvantages of the two policies from their point of view. Methods: This qualitative study was done by using opinions of experts throughout 2015 and 2016. Interviews were performed using a one-on-one and in-depth semi-structured approach. Before asking the questions, the definitions of the two models of hand-off as well as the aims of the study were briefly explained to the interviewee. Thematic and content analysis strategies were used to identify core concepts and to develop categories. Qualitative content analytical approaches focus on analyzing both the explicit content of a text and the latent content that can be extrapolated from the text. Results: In the present study, a total of 25 individuals were interviewed. The mean age of the participants was 34 years and their mean working experience was 7 years. By analyzing the interviews performed, the results were categorized in four main themes including ‘resident training’, ‘patient management in ED’, ‘quality and process of diagnosis and treatment of patients’ and finally, ‘satisfaction with the process among specialist’. Conclusion: Although the two methods have advantages and disadvantages, it is likely that during stay, model was more favorable than while departure model from the viewpoints of interviewees. However, it seems that choosing any of the methods depends on various situations such as workload, academic matters, availability of resources, etc.","PeriodicalId":75913,"journal":{"name":"Hospital practice","volume":"78 3","pages":"155 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21548331.2019.1646060","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2019.1646060","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

ABSTRACT Introduction: Currently in emergency department (ED) of educational medical centers of Iran there are generally two models for between unit hand-off process based on the time of transferring the responsibility (during stay vs. while departure). There is no comprehensive study available to compare the policies. Thus, the present qualitative study was designed to compare these two methods of hand-off via performing interviews by specialist physicians who involving the process in the hospitals to express the advantages and disadvantages of the two policies from their point of view. Methods: This qualitative study was done by using opinions of experts throughout 2015 and 2016. Interviews were performed using a one-on-one and in-depth semi-structured approach. Before asking the questions, the definitions of the two models of hand-off as well as the aims of the study were briefly explained to the interviewee. Thematic and content analysis strategies were used to identify core concepts and to develop categories. Qualitative content analytical approaches focus on analyzing both the explicit content of a text and the latent content that can be extrapolated from the text. Results: In the present study, a total of 25 individuals were interviewed. The mean age of the participants was 34 years and their mean working experience was 7 years. By analyzing the interviews performed, the results were categorized in four main themes including ‘resident training’, ‘patient management in ED’, ‘quality and process of diagnosis and treatment of patients’ and finally, ‘satisfaction with the process among specialist’. Conclusion: Although the two methods have advantages and disadvantages, it is likely that during stay, model was more favorable than while departure model from the viewpoints of interviewees. However, it seems that choosing any of the methods depends on various situations such as workload, academic matters, availability of resources, etc.
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
伊朗医院单位间交接政策的利弊:一项定性研究
摘要简介:目前在伊朗教育医疗中心的急诊科(ED),根据责任转移的时间(住院期间和离开时),一般有两种单元间交接流程模式。目前还没有全面的研究来比较这些政策。因此,本定性研究的目的是比较这两种方法的交接,通过执行访谈的专科医生谁参与过程在医院表达的优势和劣势,从他们的观点两种政策。方法:采用2015 - 2016年专家意见进行定性研究。访谈采用一对一和深入的半结构化方法进行。在提出问题之前,向受访者简要解释了两种模型的定义以及研究的目的。专题和内容分析战略用于确定核心概念和制定类别。定性内容分析方法侧重于分析文本的显性内容和可以从文本中推断出来的潜在内容。结果:本研究共访谈25人。参与者的平均年龄为34岁,平均工作经验为7年。通过分析所进行的访谈,结果分为四个主要主题,包括“住院医师培训”,“急诊科患者管理”,“患者诊断和治疗的质量和过程”,最后是“专家对过程的满意度”。结论:虽然两种方法各有优缺点,但从受访者的角度来看,停留模式可能比离开模式更有利。然而,似乎选择任何一种方法都取决于各种情况,如工作量、学术问题、资源的可用性等。
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
Benign acute myositis in an adult: case-based review. Hospitalists' COVID-19 management roles in hospitals without infectious disease specialists. Cardiac rehabilitation. Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.617: host tropism, proteolytic activation, cell-cell fusion, and neutralization sensitivity. How could perioperative anxiety be addressed via surgical team communication approaches? Findings from a scoping review.
×
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