医护人员对复苏过程中家属在场的看法和经验:定性证据综述。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-05 DOI:10.1111/aas.14323
Monika Afzali Rubin, Sandra E S Meulengracht, Katja Anna Poulsen Frederiksen, Thordis Thomsen, Ann Merete Møller
{"title":"医护人员对复苏过程中家属在场的看法和经验:定性证据综述。","authors":"Monika Afzali Rubin, Sandra E S Meulengracht, Katja Anna Poulsen Frederiksen, Thordis Thomsen, Ann Merete Møller","doi":"10.1111/aas.14323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is a growing hospital praxis despite lack of high-quality evidence. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis review was to synthesize current evidence regarding healthcare professionals (HCP) perspectives on barriers and facilitating factors of FPDR and the potential impact of FPDR on HCP performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search May 17, 2023 including primary studies with qualitative study designs. We applied NVivo for data analysis. Data was coded with line-by-line coding and organized into themes and categories following the method for thematic synthesis described by Thomas and Harden to analyse data. The studies underwent quality appraisal by Critical Appraisal Skills Program. We used GRADE CERQual to assess the confidence in the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 8241 articles suitable for screening, 141 articles were full text screened, and nine studies included from Australia, UK and USA. In total, 134 HCP participated, between 2005 and 2019. Most studies lacked sufficiently rigorous data analysis and findings were appraised to have moderate GRADE CERQual confidence. We identified three analytical themes (\"Facilitating factors for FPDR\", \"Barriers for FPDR\" and \"How staff are affected by FPDR\") with eight descriptive subthemes. One finding was of high GRADE CERQual confidence: a belief that FPDR is \"the right thing to do\" which was a \"Facilitating factor of FPDR.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence on HCP perspectives is of low to moderate confidence. The interviewed consent that FPDR is the \"right thing to do\", and an ethical principle of beneficence is dominant, especially regarding children.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"101-121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences with family presence during resuscitation: A qualitative evidence synthesis.\",\"authors\":\"Monika Afzali Rubin, Sandra E S Meulengracht, Katja Anna Poulsen Frederiksen, Thordis Thomsen, Ann Merete Møller\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aas.14323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is a growing hospital praxis despite lack of high-quality evidence. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis review was to synthesize current evidence regarding healthcare professionals (HCP) perspectives on barriers and facilitating factors of FPDR and the potential impact of FPDR on HCP performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature search May 17, 2023 including primary studies with qualitative study designs. We applied NVivo for data analysis. Data was coded with line-by-line coding and organized into themes and categories following the method for thematic synthesis described by Thomas and Harden to analyse data. The studies underwent quality appraisal by Critical Appraisal Skills Program. We used GRADE CERQual to assess the confidence in the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 8241 articles suitable for screening, 141 articles were full text screened, and nine studies included from Australia, UK and USA. In total, 134 HCP participated, between 2005 and 2019. Most studies lacked sufficiently rigorous data analysis and findings were appraised to have moderate GRADE CERQual confidence. We identified three analytical themes (\\\"Facilitating factors for FPDR\\\", \\\"Barriers for FPDR\\\" and \\\"How staff are affected by FPDR\\\") with eight descriptive subthemes. One finding was of high GRADE CERQual confidence: a belief that FPDR is \\\"the right thing to do\\\" which was a \\\"Facilitating factor of FPDR.\\\"</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence on HCP perspectives is of low to moderate confidence. The interviewed consent that FPDR is the \\\"right thing to do\\\", and an ethical principle of beneficence is dominant, especially regarding children.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"101-121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14323\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14323","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:尽管缺乏高质量的证据,但复苏过程中家属在场(FPDR)在医院中的应用越来越广泛。本定性证据综述旨在综合目前有关医护专业人员(HCP)对FPDR的障碍和促进因素的看法以及FPDR对HCP绩效的潜在影响的证据:我们于 2023 年 5 月 17 日进行了系统性文献检索,其中包括采用定性研究设计的主要研究。我们使用 NVivo 进行了数据分析。按照 Thomas 和 Harden 所描述的主题综合方法,对数据进行逐行编码,并组织成主题和类别来分析数据。这些研究都经过了 "批判性评估技能计划 "的质量评估。我们使用 GRADE CERQual 评估证据的可信度:我们确定了 8241 篇适合筛选的文章,对 141 篇文章进行了全文筛选,并纳入了来自澳大利亚、英国和美国的 9 项研究。2005年至2019年期间,共有134名HCP参与了研究。大多数研究缺乏足够严谨的数据分析,研究结果的 GRADE CERQual 可信度为中等。我们确定了三个分析主题("促进 FPDR 的因素"、"FPDR 的障碍 "和 "工作人员如何受到 FPDR 的影响")以及八个描述性次主题。其中一项研究结果具有较高的 GRADE CERQual 置信度:认为 FPDR 是 "正确的做法",这是 "FPDR 的促进因素":关于HCP观点的证据可信度为中低。受访者同意 FPDR 是 "正确的做法",尤其是对儿童而言,受益的伦理原则占主导地位。
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 healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences with family presence during resuscitation: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Introduction: Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) is a growing hospital praxis despite lack of high-quality evidence. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis review was to synthesize current evidence regarding healthcare professionals (HCP) perspectives on barriers and facilitating factors of FPDR and the potential impact of FPDR on HCP performance.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search May 17, 2023 including primary studies with qualitative study designs. We applied NVivo for data analysis. Data was coded with line-by-line coding and organized into themes and categories following the method for thematic synthesis described by Thomas and Harden to analyse data. The studies underwent quality appraisal by Critical Appraisal Skills Program. We used GRADE CERQual to assess the confidence in the evidence.

Results: We identified 8241 articles suitable for screening, 141 articles were full text screened, and nine studies included from Australia, UK and USA. In total, 134 HCP participated, between 2005 and 2019. Most studies lacked sufficiently rigorous data analysis and findings were appraised to have moderate GRADE CERQual confidence. We identified three analytical themes ("Facilitating factors for FPDR", "Barriers for FPDR" and "How staff are affected by FPDR") with eight descriptive subthemes. One finding was of high GRADE CERQual confidence: a belief that FPDR is "the right thing to do" which was a "Facilitating factor of FPDR."

Conclusion: The evidence on HCP perspectives is of low to moderate confidence. The interviewed consent that FPDR is the "right thing to do", and an ethical principle of beneficence is dominant, especially regarding children.

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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
期刊最新文献
Effect of intraoperative methadone in robot-assisted cystectomy on postoperative opioid requirements: A randomized clinical trial. Epidural analgesia versus systemic opioids for postoperative pain management after VATS: Protocol for a systematic review. Time from pain assessment to opioid treatment in the Danish emergency departments-A multicenter cohort study. Viscoelastic testing of fibrinolytic capacity in acutely infected critically ill patients: Protocol for a scoping review. Does cytochrome 2D6 genotype affect the analgesic efficacy of codeine after ambulatory surgery? Prospective trial in 987 adults.
×
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