护理伦理:评估西班牙现行机械束缚协议或同意书的伦理内容。

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Healthcare Quality Research Pub Date : 2024-04-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.02.006
R.M. Román-Gálvez , F. Gámiz-González , F.R. Matas-Matas , M.M. Rivas-Arquillo , A. Cobos-Vargas , A. Bueno-Cavanillas
{"title":"护理伦理:评估西班牙现行机械束缚协议或同意书的伦理内容。","authors":"R.M. Román-Gálvez ,&nbsp;F. Gámiz-González ,&nbsp;F.R. Matas-Matas ,&nbsp;M.M. Rivas-Arquillo ,&nbsp;A. Cobos-Vargas ,&nbsp;A. Bueno-Cavanillas","doi":"10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.02.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Mechanical restraints are widely used in health care practice, despite the numerous ethical conflicts they raise. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ethical considerations contemplated in the current protocols on mechanical restraint in Spain.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Systematic review in PubMed, WOS and Scopus, Google and Google Scholar. An ad hoc list of 30 items was used to evaluate the ethical content of the protocols. The quality of guidelines was assessed with AGREE II.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The need for informed consent (IC) is reflected in 72% of the documents, the IC model sheet is included in only 41% of them, the rest of the analyzed characteristics on IC are fulfilled in percentages between 6% (the document includes the need to reevaluate the indication for IC) and 31% (the document contemplates to whom it should be requested). More than 20 ethical contents are reflected in 31% of them and less than 10 in 19% of the guidelines. The quality of the guides, according to AGREE II, ranged from 27 to 116 points (maximum possible 161), with a mean score of 68.7. Only 9% of the documents were classified as high quality. Finally, the correlation between ethical content and quality measured with AGREE II was 0.75.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The variability of ethical contents in guidelines on mechanical restraints is very high. The ethical requirements to be included in protocols, consensus or Clinical Practice Guidelines should be defined.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37347,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ética de los cuidados: valoración de los contenidos éticos en los protocolos o consensos de contención mecánica vigentes en España\",\"authors\":\"R.M. Román-Gálvez ,&nbsp;F. Gámiz-González ,&nbsp;F.R. Matas-Matas ,&nbsp;M.M. Rivas-Arquillo ,&nbsp;A. Cobos-Vargas ,&nbsp;A. Bueno-Cavanillas\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhqr.2024.02.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Mechanical restraints are widely used in health care practice, despite the numerous ethical conflicts they raise. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ethical considerations contemplated in the current protocols on mechanical restraint in Spain.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Systematic review in PubMed, WOS and Scopus, Google and Google Scholar. An ad hoc list of 30 items was used to evaluate the ethical content of the protocols. The quality of guidelines was assessed with AGREE II.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The need for informed consent (IC) is reflected in 72% of the documents, the IC model sheet is included in only 41% of them, the rest of the analyzed characteristics on IC are fulfilled in percentages between 6% (the document includes the need to reevaluate the indication for IC) and 31% (the document contemplates to whom it should be requested). More than 20 ethical contents are reflected in 31% of them and less than 10 in 19% of the guidelines. The quality of the guides, according to AGREE II, ranged from 27 to 116 points (maximum possible 161), with a mean score of 68.7. Only 9% of the documents were classified as high quality. Finally, the correlation between ethical content and quality measured with AGREE II was 0.75.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The variability of ethical contents in guidelines on mechanical restraints is very high. The ethical requirements to be included in protocols, consensus or Clinical Practice Guidelines should be defined.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2603647924000186\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Healthcare Quality Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2603647924000186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言尽管机械束缚会引发诸多伦理冲突,但在医疗实践中却被广泛使用。本研究旨在评估西班牙现行的机械束缚方案中考虑的伦理因素。使用一份包含 30 个项目的特别清单来评估协议中的伦理内容。结果72%的文件反映了知情同意(IC)的必要性,其中只有41%的文件包含了IC模式表,其余关于IC的分析特征的满足率介于6%(文件包含了重新评估IC适应症的必要性)和31%(文件考虑了应向谁提出申请)之间。31%的指南反映了超过 20 项伦理内容,19%的指南反映了少于 10 项伦理内容。根据 AGREE II,指南的质量从 27 分到 116 分不等(最高可能为 161 分),平均分为 68.7 分。只有 9% 的文件被评为高质量。最后,根据 AGREE II 测量,伦理内容与质量之间的相关性为 0.75。应明确规定协议、共识或临床实践指南中应包含的伦理要求。
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
Ética de los cuidados: valoración de los contenidos éticos en los protocolos o consensos de contención mecánica vigentes en España

Introduction

Mechanical restraints are widely used in health care practice, despite the numerous ethical conflicts they raise. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ethical considerations contemplated in the current protocols on mechanical restraint in Spain.

Method

Systematic review in PubMed, WOS and Scopus, Google and Google Scholar. An ad hoc list of 30 items was used to evaluate the ethical content of the protocols. The quality of guidelines was assessed with AGREE II.

Results

The need for informed consent (IC) is reflected in 72% of the documents, the IC model sheet is included in only 41% of them, the rest of the analyzed characteristics on IC are fulfilled in percentages between 6% (the document includes the need to reevaluate the indication for IC) and 31% (the document contemplates to whom it should be requested). More than 20 ethical contents are reflected in 31% of them and less than 10 in 19% of the guidelines. The quality of the guides, according to AGREE II, ranged from 27 to 116 points (maximum possible 161), with a mean score of 68.7. Only 9% of the documents were classified as high quality. Finally, the correlation between ethical content and quality measured with AGREE II was 0.75.

Conclusions

The variability of ethical contents in guidelines on mechanical restraints is very high. The ethical requirements to be included in protocols, consensus or Clinical Practice Guidelines should be defined.

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
1.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
83
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Revista de Calidad Asistencial (Quality Healthcare) (RCA) is the official Journal of the Spanish Society of Quality Healthcare (Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial) (SECA) and is a tool for the dissemination of knowledge and reflection for the quality management of health services in Primary Care, as well as in Hospitals. It publishes articles associated with any aspect of research in the field of public health and health administration, including health education, epidemiology, medical statistics, health information, health economics, quality management, and health policies. The Journal publishes 6 issues, exclusively in electronic format. The Journal publishes, in Spanish, Original works, Special and Review Articles, as well as other sections. Articles are subjected to a rigorous, double blind, review process (peer review)
期刊最新文献
Letter to the Editor on "Loneliness impact on healthcare utilization in primary care: A retrospective study". [Learning from our mistakes: Notification of pediatric events through SiNASP in Galicia]. Analysis of quality of life of patients with refractive errors in India. A propósito de una encuesta sobre riesgos de la enfermedad de Chagas Utilidad del instrumento AGREE para la elaboración y la evaluación de protocolos clínicos: de la teoría a la práctica clínica
×
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