就地临终关怀与传统住院治疗的疗效对比。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1177/10499091231199722
Emily Butler, Claire Hanson, Taaseen Khan, Tuzo Mwarumba, Derek Daniels, Maxim Turchan, Kemberlee Bonnet, David Schlundt, Kelly Harper, Marc Bennett, David Charles
{"title":"就地临终关怀与传统住院治疗的疗效对比。","authors":"Emily Butler, Claire Hanson, Taaseen Khan, Tuzo Mwarumba, Derek Daniels, Maxim Turchan, Kemberlee Bonnet, David Schlundt, Kelly Harper, Marc Bennett, David Charles","doi":"10.1177/10499091231199722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The hospice-in-place program at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) is available to patients and families who elect for hospice benefits and are too unstable to be transported for hospice care. The goal of this study was to assess the satisfaction of family members of patients who died while hospitalized at VUMC and received hospice-in-place compared to the families of patients who did not receive hospice care. <b>Methods:</b> Next-of-kin satisfaction was measured through the administration of qualitative interviews and quantitative questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, and transcripts were analyzed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach to develop a conceptual framework. Participants were also asked to respond to a 10-question satisfaction questionnaire. <b>Results:</b> Forty participants were enrolled: 20 next-of-kin of patients who received hospice-in-place and 20 next-of-kin of patients who passed without hospice. Factors influencing satisfaction were organized into a conceptual framework with three categories: individual-level factors, systems-level factors, and modifying factors. For the questionnaires, the hospice-in-place group had a mean satisfaction score of 4.54 (0.76) out of five, while the non-hospice group had a mean score of 4.14 (1.00). A comparison of the two groups' responses did not show a statistically significant difference (<i>P</i> = 0.06). <b>Discussion:</b> Quantitative findings of this study showed improved satisfaction but were unable to show a significant difference in satisfaction with hospice-in-place compared to traditional care. Questionnaire results suggest that both types of care yield high satisfaction scores and are successfully supporting patients and families. The conceptual framework also adds to the understanding of end-of-life experiences at VUMC.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"863-872"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151705/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Efficacy of Hospice-In-Place Care Versus Traditional Inpatient Care.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Butler, Claire Hanson, Taaseen Khan, Tuzo Mwarumba, Derek Daniels, Maxim Turchan, Kemberlee Bonnet, David Schlundt, Kelly Harper, Marc Bennett, David Charles\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091231199722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The hospice-in-place program at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) is available to patients and families who elect for hospice benefits and are too unstable to be transported for hospice care. The goal of this study was to assess the satisfaction of family members of patients who died while hospitalized at VUMC and received hospice-in-place compared to the families of patients who did not receive hospice care. <b>Methods:</b> Next-of-kin satisfaction was measured through the administration of qualitative interviews and quantitative questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, and transcripts were analyzed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach to develop a conceptual framework. Participants were also asked to respond to a 10-question satisfaction questionnaire. <b>Results:</b> Forty participants were enrolled: 20 next-of-kin of patients who received hospice-in-place and 20 next-of-kin of patients who passed without hospice. Factors influencing satisfaction were organized into a conceptual framework with three categories: individual-level factors, systems-level factors, and modifying factors. For the questionnaires, the hospice-in-place group had a mean satisfaction score of 4.54 (0.76) out of five, while the non-hospice group had a mean score of 4.14 (1.00). A comparison of the two groups' responses did not show a statistically significant difference (<i>P</i> = 0.06). <b>Discussion:</b> Quantitative findings of this study showed improved satisfaction but were unable to show a significant difference in satisfaction with hospice-in-place compared to traditional care. Questionnaire results suggest that both types of care yield high satisfaction scores and are successfully supporting patients and families. The conceptual framework also adds to the understanding of end-of-life experiences at VUMC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"863-872\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151705/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231199722\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231199722","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:范德比尔特大学医学中心(VUMC)的就地安宁疗护项目适用于选择安宁疗护福利且因病情不稳定而无法转运接受安宁疗护的患者和家属。本研究的目的是评估在范德堡大学医学中心住院期间死亡并接受就地安宁疗护的患者家属与未接受安宁疗护的患者家属相比的满意度。方法:通过定性访谈和定量问卷调查来衡量近亲属的满意度。对半结构式访谈进行了录音,并采用归纳-演绎迭代法对访谈记录进行了分析,从而建立了一个概念框架。此外,还要求参与者回答一份包含 10 个问题的满意度问卷。结果:共招募了 40 名参与者:20 名接受就地临终关怀的患者的近亲,20 名未接受临终关怀而去世的患者的近亲。影响满意度的因素被归纳为一个概念框架,其中包括三个类别:个人层面的因素、系统层面的因素和调节因素。在问卷调查中,就地安宁疗护组的平均满意度为 4.54(0.76)分(满分 5 分),而非就地安宁疗护组的平均满意度为 4.14(1.00)分。对两组的回答进行比较,未发现有统计学意义上的显著差异(P = 0.06)。讨论本研究的定量研究结果表明,就地临终关怀与传统护理相比,满意度有所提高,但无法显示出显著差异。问卷调查结果表明,这两种护理方式都能获得较高的满意度评分,并能成功地为患者和家属提供支持。该概念框架还加深了人们对弗吉尼亚大学医学院生命末期体验的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Efficacy of Hospice-In-Place Care Versus Traditional Inpatient Care.

Introduction: The hospice-in-place program at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) is available to patients and families who elect for hospice benefits and are too unstable to be transported for hospice care. The goal of this study was to assess the satisfaction of family members of patients who died while hospitalized at VUMC and received hospice-in-place compared to the families of patients who did not receive hospice care. Methods: Next-of-kin satisfaction was measured through the administration of qualitative interviews and quantitative questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, and transcripts were analyzed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach to develop a conceptual framework. Participants were also asked to respond to a 10-question satisfaction questionnaire. Results: Forty participants were enrolled: 20 next-of-kin of patients who received hospice-in-place and 20 next-of-kin of patients who passed without hospice. Factors influencing satisfaction were organized into a conceptual framework with three categories: individual-level factors, systems-level factors, and modifying factors. For the questionnaires, the hospice-in-place group had a mean satisfaction score of 4.54 (0.76) out of five, while the non-hospice group had a mean score of 4.14 (1.00). A comparison of the two groups' responses did not show a statistically significant difference (P = 0.06). Discussion: Quantitative findings of this study showed improved satisfaction but were unable to show a significant difference in satisfaction with hospice-in-place compared to traditional care. Questionnaire results suggest that both types of care yield high satisfaction scores and are successfully supporting patients and families. The conceptual framework also adds to the understanding of end-of-life experiences at VUMC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Perceptions of Families and Nurses After Signing a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order for Patients in Respiratory Care Wards Differences in Timely Goals of Care Discussions in Nursing Homes Among Black Residents A Way Forward for Comprehensive Cancer Caregiver Support Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity Antibiotics at End of Life: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? A Narrative 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