急诊科工作人员对预先护理指示和护理目标的认识和使用:一项混合方法干预后研究。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Palliative Care Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1186/s12904-024-01566-5
Abdi D Osman, Jocelyn Howell, Michael Yeoh, Louisa Lam, Daryl Jones, George Braitberg
{"title":"急诊科工作人员对预先护理指示和护理目标的认识和使用:一项混合方法干预后研究。","authors":"Abdi D Osman, Jocelyn Howell, Michael Yeoh, Louisa Lam, Daryl Jones, George Braitberg","doi":"10.1186/s12904-024-01566-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Advance Care Planning (ACP) refers to a process that includes Advance Care Directives (ACD) and Goals of Care (GOC), a practice widely used for over three decades. Following the findings of an audit and a cross-sectional study in 2019 and 2021 respectively, we implemented several educational and other interventional strategies aimed at enhancing staff awareness and emphasizing the importance of recognizing and documenting of ACD/GOC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acknowledgement and use of ACD and GOC by Emergency Department (ED) staff following these interventions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used a mixed methods approach, incorporating both observational and cross-sectional designs with reflexive thematic analysis. Data extraction for the observational study took place between 1st April and 30th June 2023 focusing on a target population of randomly sampled adults aged ≥ 65 years. Demographics and other ACD and GOC related patients' clinical data were collected. Data collection for the cross-sectional study occurred between 19th July and 13th September 2023 targeting all ED staff. Information gathered included demographics, awareness about ACD and GOC, including storage location and implementation, as well as knowledge of Medical Treatment decision Makers (MTDM), a jurisdictional term identifying a person legally appointed to make healthcare decisions on behalf of someone who lacks decision-making capacity and other Victorian State legislative requirements were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the observational period, 22,335 patients attended the ED and 19% (n = 6546) qualified for inclusion from which a sample of 308 patients were randomly extracted. We found ACD documents were noted in the medical records of 6.5% of the sample, fewer than 8% identified in our previous study. There was no correlation between ACD record availability and age (p = 0.054; CI ranging from - 0.065 to 7.768). The response rate for the cross-sectional survey was 12% (n = 340) in contrast to earlier study with 28% (n = 476) respondents. Staff knowledge and familiarity with ACD was 25% and GOC 45%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After implementing interventions in staff education and ACP awareness, we found that ACD documentation did not improve. However, GOC documentation increased in the context of heightened institutional awareness and integration into the Electronic Medical Records (EMR).</p>","PeriodicalId":48945,"journal":{"name":"BMC Palliative Care","volume":"23 1","pages":"235"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11445853/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acknowledgement and use of advance care directives and goals of care by emergency department staff: a mixed method post intervention study.\",\"authors\":\"Abdi D Osman, Jocelyn Howell, Michael Yeoh, Louisa Lam, Daryl Jones, George Braitberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12904-024-01566-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Advance Care Planning (ACP) refers to a process that includes Advance Care Directives (ACD) and Goals of Care (GOC), a practice widely used for over three decades. Following the findings of an audit and a cross-sectional study in 2019 and 2021 respectively, we implemented several educational and other interventional strategies aimed at enhancing staff awareness and emphasizing the importance of recognizing and documenting of ACD/GOC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acknowledgement and use of ACD and GOC by Emergency Department (ED) staff following these interventions.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used a mixed methods approach, incorporating both observational and cross-sectional designs with reflexive thematic analysis. Data extraction for the observational study took place between 1st April and 30th June 2023 focusing on a target population of randomly sampled adults aged ≥ 65 years. Demographics and other ACD and GOC related patients' clinical data were collected. Data collection for the cross-sectional study occurred between 19th July and 13th September 2023 targeting all ED staff. Information gathered included demographics, awareness about ACD and GOC, including storage location and implementation, as well as knowledge of Medical Treatment decision Makers (MTDM), a jurisdictional term identifying a person legally appointed to make healthcare decisions on behalf of someone who lacks decision-making capacity and other Victorian State legislative requirements were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the observational period, 22,335 patients attended the ED and 19% (n = 6546) qualified for inclusion from which a sample of 308 patients were randomly extracted. We found ACD documents were noted in the medical records of 6.5% of the sample, fewer than 8% identified in our previous study. There was no correlation between ACD record availability and age (p = 0.054; CI ranging from - 0.065 to 7.768). The response rate for the cross-sectional survey was 12% (n = 340) in contrast to earlier study with 28% (n = 476) respondents. Staff knowledge and familiarity with ACD was 25% and GOC 45%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After implementing interventions in staff education and ACP awareness, we found that ACD documentation did not improve. However, GOC documentation increased in the context of heightened institutional awareness and integration into the Electronic Medical Records (EMR).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Palliative Care\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"235\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11445853/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01566-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"BMC Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01566-5","RegionNum":2,"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)是指包括预先护理指示(ACD)和护理目标(GOC)在内的一个过程,这种做法已被广泛应用了三十多年。根据分别于 2019 年和 2021 年进行的一项审计和一项横断面研究的结果,我们实施了多项教育和其他干预策略,旨在提高员工的意识,并强调识别和记录 ACD/GOC 的重要性。本研究旨在评估急诊科(ED)工作人员在采取这些干预措施后对 ACD 和 GOC 的认识和使用情况:我们采用了混合方法,将观察和横断面设计与反思性专题分析相结合。观察性研究的数据提取时间为 2023 年 4 月 1 日至 6 月 30 日,研究对象为随机抽样的年龄≥ 65 岁的成年人。研究人员还收集了人口统计学数据以及其他与 ACD 和 GOC 相关的患者临床数据。横断面研究的数据收集工作于 2023 年 7 月 19 日至 9 月 13 日进行,对象是急诊室的所有工作人员。收集的信息包括人口统计数据、对 ACD 和 GOC 的认识(包括存储位置和实施情况)以及对医疗决策者(MTDM)的了解,MTDM 是一个辖区术语,指的是被依法指定代表缺乏决策能力的人做出医疗决策的人,还收集了维多利亚州的其他立法要求:在观察期内,共有 22335 名患者到急诊室就诊,其中 19% 的患者(n = 6546)符合纳入条件,我们从中随机抽取了 308 名患者作为样本。我们发现,6.5% 的样本病历中记录有 ACD 文件,少于我们之前研究中发现的 8%。ACD 记录的可用性与年龄之间没有相关性(P = 0.054;CI 范围为 - 0.065 至 7.768)。横断面调查的回复率为 12%(n = 340),而之前研究的回复率为 28%(n = 476)。员工对 ACD 的了解和熟悉程度为 25%,对 GOC 的了解和熟悉程度为 45%:结论:在对员工教育和 ACP 意识进行干预后,我们发现 ACD 文件记录并没有得到改善。然而,在提高机构意识并将其纳入电子病历(EMR)的背景下,GOC 文档有所增加。
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
Acknowledgement and use of advance care directives and goals of care by emergency department staff: a mixed method post intervention study.

Introduction: Advance Care Planning (ACP) refers to a process that includes Advance Care Directives (ACD) and Goals of Care (GOC), a practice widely used for over three decades. Following the findings of an audit and a cross-sectional study in 2019 and 2021 respectively, we implemented several educational and other interventional strategies aimed at enhancing staff awareness and emphasizing the importance of recognizing and documenting of ACD/GOC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acknowledgement and use of ACD and GOC by Emergency Department (ED) staff following these interventions.

Method: We used a mixed methods approach, incorporating both observational and cross-sectional designs with reflexive thematic analysis. Data extraction for the observational study took place between 1st April and 30th June 2023 focusing on a target population of randomly sampled adults aged ≥ 65 years. Demographics and other ACD and GOC related patients' clinical data were collected. Data collection for the cross-sectional study occurred between 19th July and 13th September 2023 targeting all ED staff. Information gathered included demographics, awareness about ACD and GOC, including storage location and implementation, as well as knowledge of Medical Treatment decision Makers (MTDM), a jurisdictional term identifying a person legally appointed to make healthcare decisions on behalf of someone who lacks decision-making capacity and other Victorian State legislative requirements were collected.

Results: In the observational period, 22,335 patients attended the ED and 19% (n = 6546) qualified for inclusion from which a sample of 308 patients were randomly extracted. We found ACD documents were noted in the medical records of 6.5% of the sample, fewer than 8% identified in our previous study. There was no correlation between ACD record availability and age (p = 0.054; CI ranging from - 0.065 to 7.768). The response rate for the cross-sectional survey was 12% (n = 340) in contrast to earlier study with 28% (n = 476) respondents. Staff knowledge and familiarity with ACD was 25% and GOC 45%.

Conclusion: After implementing interventions in staff education and ACP awareness, we found that ACD documentation did not improve. However, GOC documentation increased in the context of heightened institutional awareness and integration into the Electronic Medical Records (EMR).

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
BMC Palliative Care
BMC Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
201
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Palliative Care is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the clinical, scientific, ethical and policy issues, local and international, regarding all aspects of hospice and palliative care for the dying and for those with profound suffering related to chronic illness.
期刊最新文献
Communication about incurable illness and remaining life between spouses and patients with incurable illness receiving specialized home care: effects of a family caregiver-targeted web-based psycho-educational intervention. Correction: Adapting the serious illness conversation guide for unhoused older adults: a rapid qualitative study. Online education in palliative care - A national exploratory multimethod study. The family talk intervention prevent the feeling of loneliness - a long term follow up after a parents life-threatening illness. Is the use of antibiotic stewardship measures in the context of specialized outpatient palliative care sensible and feasible? An interview-based study.
×
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