改进在外科住院病房亲密检查中陪伴者的记录:一个四阶段的方法。

Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3233/JRS-227031
Anna Politis, Hannah Cook, Hugo M L Cohen, Anne Pullyblank
{"title":"改进在外科住院病房亲密检查中陪伴者的记录:一个四阶段的方法。","authors":"Anna Politis,&nbsp;Hannah Cook,&nbsp;Hugo M L Cohen,&nbsp;Anne Pullyblank","doi":"10.3233/JRS-227031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The General Medical Council (GMC) states that all intimate examinations should have a chaperone offered. Documentation of chaperone identity, or patient's refusal, is essential.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This project aimed to improve documentation of chaperones during intimate examination of patients based in a Surgical Admissions Unit (SAU) within a large tertiary hospital in the Southwest of the UK.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle structure was used. Initial data collection and planning occurred in December 2019. Intervention implementation and analysis occurred from January 2020 to March 2021. Intervention 1 involved presenting results at a clinical governance meeting. Intervention 2 was information posters in the SAU and intervention 3 involved training sessions for nursing staff. Intervention 4 was editing the surgical clerking proforma.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prior to interventions, chaperone identity or patient's refusal was correctly documented only 9.7% (N = 7 out of 72) of the time. Intervention 1 increased this to 34.6%. Following interventions 3 and 4, correct documentation was 25.0% and 28.6% respectively. After intervention 4 correct documentation was at 59.1%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Initial documentation of chaperones was poor. Interventions 1 to 3 were successful in educating clinicians how to document accurately, but engaging individuals in person was more successful than passive education through posters. Changing the proforma structure was the most successful intervention. This suggests a visual reminder for clinicians at the point of contact with the patient is the most effective way to encourage correct documentation of chaperones, improving patient care and clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0b/e8/jrs-33-jrs227031.PMC9844066.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the documentation of chaperones during intimate examinations in a surgical admissions unit: A four-stage approach.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Politis,&nbsp;Hannah Cook,&nbsp;Hugo M L Cohen,&nbsp;Anne Pullyblank\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/JRS-227031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The General Medical Council (GMC) states that all intimate examinations should have a chaperone offered. Documentation of chaperone identity, or patient's refusal, is essential.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This project aimed to improve documentation of chaperones during intimate examination of patients based in a Surgical Admissions Unit (SAU) within a large tertiary hospital in the Southwest of the UK.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle structure was used. Initial data collection and planning occurred in December 2019. Intervention implementation and analysis occurred from January 2020 to March 2021. Intervention 1 involved presenting results at a clinical governance meeting. Intervention 2 was information posters in the SAU and intervention 3 involved training sessions for nursing staff. Intervention 4 was editing the surgical clerking proforma.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prior to interventions, chaperone identity or patient's refusal was correctly documented only 9.7% (N = 7 out of 72) of the time. Intervention 1 increased this to 34.6%. Following interventions 3 and 4, correct documentation was 25.0% and 28.6% respectively. After intervention 4 correct documentation was at 59.1%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Initial documentation of chaperones was poor. Interventions 1 to 3 were successful in educating clinicians how to document accurately, but engaging individuals in person was more successful than passive education through posters. Changing the proforma structure was the most successful intervention. This suggests a visual reminder for clinicians at the point of contact with the patient is the most effective way to encourage correct documentation of chaperones, improving patient care and clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0b/e8/jrs-33-jrs227031.PMC9844066.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-227031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-227031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一般医学委员会(GMC)指出,所有的亲密检查都应该有一个陪同人员。监护人的身份证明文件,或病人的拒绝,是必不可少的。目的:本项目旨在改善在英国西南部一家大型三级医院外科住院单位(SAU)对患者进行亲密检查时伴侣的记录。方法:采用计划-研究-行动(PDSA)循环结构。初步数据收集和规划工作于2019年12月进行。干预措施的实施和分析于2020年1月至2021年3月进行。干预措施1包括在临床治理会议上报告结果。干预措施2是在SAU张贴信息海报,干预措施3是对护理人员进行培训。干预4是编辑外科办事员表格。结果:干预前,伴侣身份或患者拒绝的正确记录率仅为9.7%(72人中有7人)。干预1将这一比例提高到34.6%。干预措施3和干预措施4的正确率分别为25.0%和28.6%。干预后,正确率为59.1%。结论:陪伴者的初步记录较差。干预措施1至3在教育临床医生如何准确记录方面是成功的,但让个人亲自参与比通过海报进行被动教育更成功。改变形式结构是最成功的干预措施。这表明,在与患者接触时,临床医生的视觉提醒是鼓励正确记录陪伴者、改善患者护理和临床实践的最有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Improving the documentation of chaperones during intimate examinations in a surgical admissions unit: A four-stage approach.

Background: The General Medical Council (GMC) states that all intimate examinations should have a chaperone offered. Documentation of chaperone identity, or patient's refusal, is essential.

Objective: This project aimed to improve documentation of chaperones during intimate examination of patients based in a Surgical Admissions Unit (SAU) within a large tertiary hospital in the Southwest of the UK.

Methods: A Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle structure was used. Initial data collection and planning occurred in December 2019. Intervention implementation and analysis occurred from January 2020 to March 2021. Intervention 1 involved presenting results at a clinical governance meeting. Intervention 2 was information posters in the SAU and intervention 3 involved training sessions for nursing staff. Intervention 4 was editing the surgical clerking proforma.

Results: Prior to interventions, chaperone identity or patient's refusal was correctly documented only 9.7% (N = 7 out of 72) of the time. Intervention 1 increased this to 34.6%. Following interventions 3 and 4, correct documentation was 25.0% and 28.6% respectively. After intervention 4 correct documentation was at 59.1%.

Conclusions: Initial documentation of chaperones was poor. Interventions 1 to 3 were successful in educating clinicians how to document accurately, but engaging individuals in person was more successful than passive education through posters. Changing the proforma structure was the most successful intervention. This suggests a visual reminder for clinicians at the point of contact with the patient is the most effective way to encourage correct documentation of chaperones, improving patient care and clinical practice.

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
×
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