多机构调查接收医生对医院间转院适当原因的看法:混合方法评估》。

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-12 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001203
Khanh T Nguyen, Tiffany M Lee, Stephanie K Mueller
{"title":"多机构调查接收医生对医院间转院适当原因的看法:混合方法评估》。","authors":"Khanh T Nguyen, Tiffany M Lee, Stephanie K Mueller","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines to direct best practices in interhospital transfers (IHTs). We aimed to identify frontline physicians' current and ideal reasons for accepting IHT patients to inform future IHT research and guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of hospitalist physicians across 11 geographically diverse hospitals. The survey asked respondents how frequently they currently consider and should consider various factors when triaging IHT requests. Responses were dichotomized into \"highly considered\" and \"less considered\" factors. Frequencies of the \"highly considered\" factors (current and ideal) were analyzed. Write-in responses were coded into themes within a priori domains in a qualitative analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 666 hospitalists surveyed, 238 (36%) responded. Respondents most frequently identified the need for specialty procedural and nonprocedural care and bed capacity as factors that should be considered when triaging IHT patients in current and ideal practice, whereas the least frequently considered factors were COVID-related care, insurance/financial considerations, and patient/family preference. More experienced respondents considered patient/family preference more frequently in current and ideal practice compared with less experienced respondents (33% versus 11% [ P = 0.0001] and 26% versus 9% [ P = 0.01], respectively). Qualitative analysis identified several themes in the domains of Criteria for Acceptance, Threshold for Acceptance, and Indications for Physician-to-Physician Communication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This geographically diverse sample of hospitalist physicians responsible for accepting IHT patients showed general agreement between primary factors that are currently and that should be considered for IHT acceptance, with greatest weight placed on patients' need for specialty care.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-Institution Survey of Accepting Physicians' Perception of Appropriate Reasons for Interhospital Transfer: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Khanh T Nguyen, Tiffany M Lee, Stephanie K Mueller\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines to direct best practices in interhospital transfers (IHTs). We aimed to identify frontline physicians' current and ideal reasons for accepting IHT patients to inform future IHT research and guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of hospitalist physicians across 11 geographically diverse hospitals. The survey asked respondents how frequently they currently consider and should consider various factors when triaging IHT requests. Responses were dichotomized into \\\"highly considered\\\" and \\\"less considered\\\" factors. Frequencies of the \\\"highly considered\\\" factors (current and ideal) were analyzed. Write-in responses were coded into themes within a priori domains in a qualitative analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 666 hospitalists surveyed, 238 (36%) responded. Respondents most frequently identified the need for specialty procedural and nonprocedural care and bed capacity as factors that should be considered when triaging IHT patients in current and ideal practice, whereas the least frequently considered factors were COVID-related care, insurance/financial considerations, and patient/family preference. More experienced respondents considered patient/family preference more frequently in current and ideal practice compared with less experienced respondents (33% versus 11% [ P = 0.0001] and 26% versus 9% [ P = 0.01], respectively). Qualitative analysis identified several themes in the domains of Criteria for Acceptance, Threshold for Acceptance, and Indications for Physician-to-Physician Communication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This geographically diverse sample of hospitalist physicians responsible for accepting IHT patients showed general agreement between primary factors that are currently and that should be considered for IHT acceptance, with greatest weight placed on patients' need for specialty care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001203\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001203","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前缺乏循证指南来指导院间转运(IHT)的最佳实践。我们旨在确定一线医生接受院间转运病人的当前和理想原因,为未来的院间转运研究和指南提供参考:我们对 11 家不同地区医院的住院医生进行了横向调查。调查询问了受访者目前在分流 IHT 患者时考虑和应该考虑的各种因素的频率。回答被分为 "高度考虑 "和 "较少考虑 "两种因素。对 "高度考虑 "因素(当前和理想)的频率进行了分析。在定性分析中,将写入的回复编码为先验领域内的主题:在接受调查的 666 名住院医生中,有 238 人(36%)做出了回复。受访者最常认为,在当前和理想的实践中,分流 IHT 患者时应考虑的因素包括对专科程序性和非程序性护理的需求以及床位容量,而考虑最少的因素则是 COVID 相关护理、保险/财务考虑以及患者/家属的偏好。与经验较少的受访者相比,经验丰富的受访者在当前和理想实践中更经常考虑患者/家属的偏好(分别为 33% 对 11% [P = 0.0001] 和 26% 对 9% [P = 0.01])。定性分析在 "接受标准"、"接受阈值 "和 "医生与医生交流的指征 "领域确定了几个主题:负责接受 IHT 患者的住院医师样本具有地域多样性,他们对目前接受 IHT 的主要因素和接受 IHT 时应考虑的因素达成了普遍一致,其中患者对专科护理的需求最为重要。
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
Multi-Institution Survey of Accepting Physicians' Perception of Appropriate Reasons for Interhospital Transfer: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

Objectives: There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines to direct best practices in interhospital transfers (IHTs). We aimed to identify frontline physicians' current and ideal reasons for accepting IHT patients to inform future IHT research and guidelines.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of hospitalist physicians across 11 geographically diverse hospitals. The survey asked respondents how frequently they currently consider and should consider various factors when triaging IHT requests. Responses were dichotomized into "highly considered" and "less considered" factors. Frequencies of the "highly considered" factors (current and ideal) were analyzed. Write-in responses were coded into themes within a priori domains in a qualitative analysis.

Results: Of the 666 hospitalists surveyed, 238 (36%) responded. Respondents most frequently identified the need for specialty procedural and nonprocedural care and bed capacity as factors that should be considered when triaging IHT patients in current and ideal practice, whereas the least frequently considered factors were COVID-related care, insurance/financial considerations, and patient/family preference. More experienced respondents considered patient/family preference more frequently in current and ideal practice compared with less experienced respondents (33% versus 11% [ P = 0.0001] and 26% versus 9% [ P = 0.01], respectively). Qualitative analysis identified several themes in the domains of Criteria for Acceptance, Threshold for Acceptance, and Indications for Physician-to-Physician Communication.

Conclusions: This geographically diverse sample of hospitalist physicians responsible for accepting IHT patients showed general agreement between primary factors that are currently and that should be considered for IHT acceptance, with greatest weight placed on patients' need for specialty care.

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
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
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