患者对急诊科行为标志的看法:定性分析。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-21 DOI:10.1111/acem.14887
Rachel E Gonzales, Emily F Seeburger, Ari B Friedman, Anish K Agarwal
{"title":"患者对急诊科行为标志的看法:定性分析。","authors":"Rachel E Gonzales, Emily F Seeburger, Ari B Friedman, Anish K Agarwal","doi":"10.1111/acem.14887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To combat increasing levels of violence in the emergency department (ED), hospitals have implemented several safety measures, including behavioral flags. These electronic health record (EHR)-based notifications alert future clinicians of past incidents of potentially threatening patient behavior, but observed racial disparities in their placement may unintentionally introduce bias in patient care. Little is known about how patients perceive these flags and the disparities that have been found in their placement.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to investigate patient perceptions and perceived benefits and harms associated with the use of behavioral flags.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-five semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of patients in the ED of a large, urban, academic medical center who did not have a behavioral flag in their EHR. Interviews lasted 10-20 min and were recorded then transcribed. Thematic analysis of deidentified transcripts took place in NVivo 20 software (QSR International) using a general inductive approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participant perceptions of behavioral flags varied, with both positive and negative opinions being shared. Five key themes, each with subthemes, were identified: (1) benefits of behavioral flags, (2) concerns and potential harms of flags, (3) transparency with patients, (4) equity, and (5) ideas for improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient perspectives on the use of behavioral flags in the ED vary. While many saw flags as a helpful tool to mitigate violence, concerns around negative impacts on care, transparency, and equity were also shared. Insights from this stakeholder perspective may allow for health systems to make flags more effective without compromising equity or patient ideals.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient perceptions of behavioral flags in the emergency department: A qualitative analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel E Gonzales, Emily F Seeburger, Ari B Friedman, Anish K Agarwal\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.14887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To combat increasing levels of violence in the emergency department (ED), hospitals have implemented several safety measures, including behavioral flags. These electronic health record (EHR)-based notifications alert future clinicians of past incidents of potentially threatening patient behavior, but observed racial disparities in their placement may unintentionally introduce bias in patient care. Little is known about how patients perceive these flags and the disparities that have been found in their placement.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to investigate patient perceptions and perceived benefits and harms associated with the use of behavioral flags.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-five semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of patients in the ED of a large, urban, academic medical center who did not have a behavioral flag in their EHR. Interviews lasted 10-20 min and were recorded then transcribed. Thematic analysis of deidentified transcripts took place in NVivo 20 software (QSR International) using a general inductive approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participant perceptions of behavioral flags varied, with both positive and negative opinions being shared. Five key themes, each with subthemes, were identified: (1) benefits of behavioral flags, (2) concerns and potential harms of flags, (3) transparency with patients, (4) equity, and (5) ideas for improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient perspectives on the use of behavioral flags in the ED vary. While many saw flags as a helpful tool to mitigate violence, concerns around negative impacts on care, transparency, and equity were also shared. Insights from this stakeholder perspective may allow for health systems to make flags more effective without compromising equity or patient ideals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14887\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14887","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为应对急诊科(ED)中日益严重的暴力事件,医院实施了多项安全措施,其中包括行为标记。这些基于电子健康记录(EHR)的通知会提醒未来的临床医生注意过去发生的具有潜在威胁性的患者行为事件,但观察到的标记位置的种族差异可能会无意中在患者护理中引入偏见。关于患者如何看待这些标记以及在标记位置上发现的差异,人们知之甚少:本研究旨在调查患者对使用行为标记的看法以及与之相关的利益和危害:对一家大型城市学术医疗中心急诊室的患者进行了 25 次半结构化定性访谈,这些患者的电子病历中没有行为标志。访谈持续了 10-20 分钟,并进行了录音和转录。采用一般归纳法,在 NVivo 20 软件(QSR International)中对去标识的记录誊本进行了主题分析:结果:参与者对行为旗的看法各不相同,既有积极的看法,也有消极的看法。我们确定了五个关键主题,每个主题都有副主题:(1) 行为标记的益处,(2) 标记的顾虑和潜在危害,(3) 对患者的透明度,(4) 公平性,以及 (5) 改进意见:患者对在急诊室使用行为标记的看法各不相同。虽然许多人认为行为标记是减少暴力的有用工具,但也有人担心会对护理、透明度和公平性产生负面影响。从这些利益相关者的角度出发,医疗系统可以在不损害公平性或患者理想的前提下,使标记更加有效。
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
Patient perceptions of behavioral flags in the emergency department: A qualitative analysis.

Background: To combat increasing levels of violence in the emergency department (ED), hospitals have implemented several safety measures, including behavioral flags. These electronic health record (EHR)-based notifications alert future clinicians of past incidents of potentially threatening patient behavior, but observed racial disparities in their placement may unintentionally introduce bias in patient care. Little is known about how patients perceive these flags and the disparities that have been found in their placement.

Objective: This study aims to investigate patient perceptions and perceived benefits and harms associated with the use of behavioral flags.

Methods: Twenty-five semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of patients in the ED of a large, urban, academic medical center who did not have a behavioral flag in their EHR. Interviews lasted 10-20 min and were recorded then transcribed. Thematic analysis of deidentified transcripts took place in NVivo 20 software (QSR International) using a general inductive approach.

Results: Participant perceptions of behavioral flags varied, with both positive and negative opinions being shared. Five key themes, each with subthemes, were identified: (1) benefits of behavioral flags, (2) concerns and potential harms of flags, (3) transparency with patients, (4) equity, and (5) ideas for improvement.

Conclusions: Patient perspectives on the use of behavioral flags in the ED vary. While many saw flags as a helpful tool to mitigate violence, concerns around negative impacts on care, transparency, and equity were also shared. Insights from this stakeholder perspective may allow for health systems to make flags more effective without compromising equity or patient ideals.

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
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Discharge instruction comprehension by older adults in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta‐analysis A little glitter goes a long way. Characterizing Spanish-speaking patients' patient-centered care experiences in the emergency department. Long guidewire peripheral intravenous catheters in emergency departments for management of difficult intravenous access: A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. December.
×
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