大流行病中肿瘤学和姑息关怀中的跨学科预先护理计划:最佳实践实施项目。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Jbi Evidence Implementation Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000445
Felix Muehlensiepen, Henrikje Stanze, Susann May, Kerstin Stahlhut, Carolin Helm, Hassan Tarek Hakam, Małgorzata M Bała, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Tereza Vrbová, Jitka Klugarova, Robert Prill
{"title":"大流行病中肿瘤学和姑息关怀中的跨学科预先护理计划:最佳实践实施项目。","authors":"Felix Muehlensiepen, Henrikje Stanze, Susann May, Kerstin Stahlhut, Carolin Helm, Hassan Tarek Hakam, Małgorzata M Bała, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Tereza Vrbová, Jitka Klugarova, Robert Prill","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Advance care planning (ACP) ensures that patients receive medical care aligned with their values, goals, and preferences, especially regarding end-of-life decisions in serious chronic illnesses.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This project aimed to introduce and promote evidence-based ACP in oncology and palliative care at a midsized hospital near Berlin, Germany, during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project was guided by the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework and used a mixed methods audit cycle. A baseline audit was conducted using qualitative interviews and workshops with representatives from all the health care disciplines involved in oncology and palliative care at the hospital. The findings were compared with eight best practice recommendations. Targeted strategies aimed at the key stakeholders involved in ACP practice were then implemented. Finally, a semi-quantitative questionnaire was used in a follow-up audit with the same participants as in the baseline audit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline audit revealed a high level of familiarity with the concept of ACP. However, there was a lack of a uniformly accepted definition and understanding of ACP among the health care professionals, leading to a lack of coordination in task distribution. The follow-up audit revealed improvements with regard to education and training in ACP (Criterion 1: 50% to 100%) and organizational support to facilitate ACP conversations (Criterion 3: 87.5% to 100%). Other audit criteria compliance rates remained unchanged.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical education and team-based process analysis can facilitate ACP implementation across disciplines in oncology and palliative care facilities. However, the project did not succeed in implementing lasting changes in clinical processes and best practice ACP due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such an endeavor would demand considerable resources and time, both of which were constrained during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A236.</p>","PeriodicalId":48473,"journal":{"name":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-disciplinary advance care planning in oncology and palliative care amidst a pandemic: a best practice implementation project.\",\"authors\":\"Felix Muehlensiepen, Henrikje Stanze, Susann May, Kerstin Stahlhut, Carolin Helm, Hassan Tarek Hakam, Małgorzata M Bała, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Tereza Vrbová, Jitka Klugarova, Robert Prill\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Advance care planning (ACP) ensures that patients receive medical care aligned with their values, goals, and preferences, especially regarding end-of-life decisions in serious chronic illnesses.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This project aimed to introduce and promote evidence-based ACP in oncology and palliative care at a midsized hospital near Berlin, Germany, during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project was guided by the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework and used a mixed methods audit cycle. A baseline audit was conducted using qualitative interviews and workshops with representatives from all the health care disciplines involved in oncology and palliative care at the hospital. The findings were compared with eight best practice recommendations. Targeted strategies aimed at the key stakeholders involved in ACP practice were then implemented. Finally, a semi-quantitative questionnaire was used in a follow-up audit with the same participants as in the baseline audit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline audit revealed a high level of familiarity with the concept of ACP. However, there was a lack of a uniformly accepted definition and understanding of ACP among the health care professionals, leading to a lack of coordination in task distribution. The follow-up audit revealed improvements with regard to education and training in ACP (Criterion 1: 50% to 100%) and organizational support to facilitate ACP conversations (Criterion 3: 87.5% to 100%). Other audit criteria compliance rates remained unchanged.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical education and team-based process analysis can facilitate ACP implementation across disciplines in oncology and palliative care facilities. However, the project did not succeed in implementing lasting changes in clinical processes and best practice ACP due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such an endeavor would demand considerable resources and time, both of which were constrained during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A236.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jbi Evidence Implementation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jbi Evidence Implementation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000445\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000445","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:预先护理计划(ACP)可确保患者获得符合其价值观、目标和偏好的医疗护理,尤其是在严重慢性疾病的临终决定方面:本项目旨在 COVID-19 大流行期间,在德国柏林附近的一家中型医院的肿瘤学和姑息治疗中引入并推广以证据为基础的 ACP:该项目以 JBI 证据实施框架为指导,采用混合方法审计周期。通过定性访谈和研讨会的形式,对该医院参与肿瘤学和姑息治疗的所有医疗学科的代表进行了基线审核。审计结果与八项最佳实践建议进行了比较。然后,针对参与 ACP 实践的主要利益相关者实施了有针对性的策略。最后,在后续审计中使用了半定量问卷,参与人员与基线审计相同:结果:基线审计显示,人们对 ACP 概念的熟悉程度较高。然而,医护人员对 ACP 缺乏统一的定义和理解,导致任务分配缺乏协调。后续审计显示,ACP 的教育和培训(标准 1:50% 至 100%)以及促进 ACP 对话的组织支持(标准 3:87.5% 至 100%)均有所改善。其他审核标准的符合率保持不变:临床教育和基于团队的流程分析可促进肿瘤和姑息治疗机构各学科实施 ACP。然而,由于 COVID-19 大流行,该项目未能成功实施临床流程和最佳实践 ACP 的持久变革。这样的努力需要大量的资源和时间,而在大流行期间这两者都受到了限制。西班牙文摘要:http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A236。
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
Cross-disciplinary advance care planning in oncology and palliative care amidst a pandemic: a best practice implementation project.

Introduction: Advance care planning (ACP) ensures that patients receive medical care aligned with their values, goals, and preferences, especially regarding end-of-life decisions in serious chronic illnesses.

Objective: This project aimed to introduce and promote evidence-based ACP in oncology and palliative care at a midsized hospital near Berlin, Germany, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: This project was guided by the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework and used a mixed methods audit cycle. A baseline audit was conducted using qualitative interviews and workshops with representatives from all the health care disciplines involved in oncology and palliative care at the hospital. The findings were compared with eight best practice recommendations. Targeted strategies aimed at the key stakeholders involved in ACP practice were then implemented. Finally, a semi-quantitative questionnaire was used in a follow-up audit with the same participants as in the baseline audit.

Results: The baseline audit revealed a high level of familiarity with the concept of ACP. However, there was a lack of a uniformly accepted definition and understanding of ACP among the health care professionals, leading to a lack of coordination in task distribution. The follow-up audit revealed improvements with regard to education and training in ACP (Criterion 1: 50% to 100%) and organizational support to facilitate ACP conversations (Criterion 3: 87.5% to 100%). Other audit criteria compliance rates remained unchanged.

Conclusion: Clinical education and team-based process analysis can facilitate ACP implementation across disciplines in oncology and palliative care facilities. However, the project did not succeed in implementing lasting changes in clinical processes and best practice ACP due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Such an endeavor would demand considerable resources and time, both of which were constrained during the pandemic.

Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A236.

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
3.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Comparison of two audit and feedback approaches: descriptive analysis of personal and contextual dynamics. Collaborative implementation science: a Can-SOLVE CKD case example. Improving communication among nursing staff at a children's hospital in the southern United States: a best practice implementation project. Improving the quality of medication administration practices in a tertiary Australian hospital: a best practice implementation project. Cross-disciplinary advance care planning in oncology and palliative care amidst a pandemic: a best practice implementation project.
×
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