急诊科小儿发热视频出院指导的实验研究。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality Management in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000463
Carmen Luna-Arana, Cristina Castro-Rodríguez, Ana Jové-Blanco, Andrea Mora-Capín, Clara Ferrero García-Loygorri, Paula Vázquez-López
{"title":"急诊科小儿发热视频出院指导的实验研究。","authors":"Carmen Luna-Arana, Cristina Castro-Rodríguez, Ana Jové-Blanco, Andrea Mora-Capín, Clara Ferrero García-Loygorri, Paula Vázquez-López","doi":"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Fever is a frequent cause of consultation in the pediatric emergency department (PED). Adequate discharge instructions are essential to guarantee good management at home and can reduce caregivers' anxiety and re-consultations. This study compares the improvement of caregivers' knowledge regarding fever between verbal discharge instructions and the addition of a video to verbal information. As a secondary outcome, we compared the rate of return visits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An experimental, prospective, single-center study was conducted in a tertiary hospital PED. Patients between 3 months and 5 years old with febrile syndrome were enrolled. Patients with comorbidities or SARS-COV2 infection were excluded. First, caregivers answered a written test concerning fever characteristics, management, and warning signs. Patients were assigned by simple randomization to a control group (standard verbal and written instructions) or to an intervention group (which additionally received video instructions). After discharge, investigators contacted caregivers by telephone. Caregivers were asked to answer the same questions as in the written test in addition to the need for subsequent visits (at the PED or any other healthcare facility) after discharge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-three patients were randomized to the intervention group and 77 to the control group (2 were lost during follow-up). There were no differences in the acquisition of caregiver's knowledge, with a median score improvement of 2 points in both groups (control group interquartile range (IQR) 1-2; intervention group IQR 1-3) (P = .389). In the intervention group, we observed a significant increase of correct answers in 4 out of 7 questions compared to 3 out of 7 questions in the control group. In the control group, 18.7% reconsulted compared to 10.9% in the intervention group (P = .188).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Video instructions were not superior to verbal instructions at improving caregivers' knowledge of fever overall. However, more questions obtained a significant score increase in those that received video and verbal instructions. Our results suggest that the addition of video instructions could help reduce return visits.</p>","PeriodicalId":20986,"journal":{"name":"Quality Management in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experimental Study on Video Discharge Instructions for Pediatric Fever in an Emergency Department.\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Luna-Arana, Cristina Castro-Rodríguez, Ana Jové-Blanco, Andrea Mora-Capín, Clara Ferrero García-Loygorri, Paula Vázquez-López\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Fever is a frequent cause of consultation in the pediatric emergency department (PED). Adequate discharge instructions are essential to guarantee good management at home and can reduce caregivers' anxiety and re-consultations. This study compares the improvement of caregivers' knowledge regarding fever between verbal discharge instructions and the addition of a video to verbal information. As a secondary outcome, we compared the rate of return visits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An experimental, prospective, single-center study was conducted in a tertiary hospital PED. Patients between 3 months and 5 years old with febrile syndrome were enrolled. Patients with comorbidities or SARS-COV2 infection were excluded. First, caregivers answered a written test concerning fever characteristics, management, and warning signs. Patients were assigned by simple randomization to a control group (standard verbal and written instructions) or to an intervention group (which additionally received video instructions). After discharge, investigators contacted caregivers by telephone. Caregivers were asked to answer the same questions as in the written test in addition to the need for subsequent visits (at the PED or any other healthcare facility) after discharge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-three patients were randomized to the intervention group and 77 to the control group (2 were lost during follow-up). There were no differences in the acquisition of caregiver's knowledge, with a median score improvement of 2 points in both groups (control group interquartile range (IQR) 1-2; intervention group IQR 1-3) (P = .389). In the intervention group, we observed a significant increase of correct answers in 4 out of 7 questions compared to 3 out of 7 questions in the control group. In the control group, 18.7% reconsulted compared to 10.9% in the intervention group (P = .188).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Video instructions were not superior to verbal instructions at improving caregivers' knowledge of fever overall. However, more questions obtained a significant score increase in those that received video and verbal instructions. Our results suggest that the addition of video instructions could help reduce return visits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality Management in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality Management in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000463\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"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":"Quality Management in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000463","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

背景和目的:发热是儿科急诊室(PED)的常见病因。充分的出院指导对于保证患者在家中得到良好的治疗至关重要,并能减少护理人员的焦虑和再次就诊。本研究比较了口头出院指导和在口头信息基础上添加视频对护理人员发热知识掌握程度的提高。作为次要结果,我们还比较了回访率:方法:我们在一家三甲医院的 PED 进行了一项实验性、前瞻性、单中心研究。研究对象为 3 个月至 5 岁的发热综合征患者。患有合并症或感染 SARS-COV2 的患者被排除在外。首先,护理人员回答了有关发热特征、处理方法和预警信号的书面测试。通过简单的随机分配,患者被分配到对照组(标准的口头和书面指导)或干预组(额外接受视频指导)。出院后,调查人员通过电话联系了护理人员。除了要求护理人员回答与书面测试中相同的问题外,还要求他们回答出院后是否需要继续就诊(PED 或任何其他医疗机构):73名患者被随机分配到干预组,77名患者被随机分配到对照组(2人在随访过程中失踪)。两组患者在获得护理知识方面没有差异,得分中位数均提高了 2 分(对照组四分位数间距 (IQR) 1-2;干预组四分位数间距 (IQR) 1-3)(P = .389)。在干预组中,我们观察到 7 个问题中有 4 个问题的正确答案明显高于对照组 7 个问题中的 3 个。对照组中有 18.7% 的人重新进行了咨询,而干预组中只有 10.9% 的人重新进行了咨询(P = .188):结论:视频指导在提高护理人员对发烧的整体认识方面并不优于口头指导。然而,在接受视频和口头指导的人群中,有更多问题的得分得到了显著提高。我们的结果表明,增加视频指导有助于减少回访。
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
Experimental Study on Video Discharge Instructions for Pediatric Fever in an Emergency Department.

Background and objectives: Fever is a frequent cause of consultation in the pediatric emergency department (PED). Adequate discharge instructions are essential to guarantee good management at home and can reduce caregivers' anxiety and re-consultations. This study compares the improvement of caregivers' knowledge regarding fever between verbal discharge instructions and the addition of a video to verbal information. As a secondary outcome, we compared the rate of return visits.

Methods: An experimental, prospective, single-center study was conducted in a tertiary hospital PED. Patients between 3 months and 5 years old with febrile syndrome were enrolled. Patients with comorbidities or SARS-COV2 infection were excluded. First, caregivers answered a written test concerning fever characteristics, management, and warning signs. Patients were assigned by simple randomization to a control group (standard verbal and written instructions) or to an intervention group (which additionally received video instructions). After discharge, investigators contacted caregivers by telephone. Caregivers were asked to answer the same questions as in the written test in addition to the need for subsequent visits (at the PED or any other healthcare facility) after discharge.

Results: Seventy-three patients were randomized to the intervention group and 77 to the control group (2 were lost during follow-up). There were no differences in the acquisition of caregiver's knowledge, with a median score improvement of 2 points in both groups (control group interquartile range (IQR) 1-2; intervention group IQR 1-3) (P = .389). In the intervention group, we observed a significant increase of correct answers in 4 out of 7 questions compared to 3 out of 7 questions in the control group. In the control group, 18.7% reconsulted compared to 10.9% in the intervention group (P = .188).

Conclusions: Video instructions were not superior to verbal instructions at improving caregivers' knowledge of fever overall. However, more questions obtained a significant score increase in those that received video and verbal instructions. Our results suggest that the addition of video instructions could help reduce return visits.

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
Quality Management in Health Care
Quality Management in Health Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for our readers to explore the theoretical, technical, and strategic elements of health care quality management. The journal''s primary focus is on organizational structure and processes as these affect the quality of care and patient outcomes. In particular, it: -Builds knowledge about the application of statistical tools, control charts, benchmarking, and other devices used in the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of care and of patient outcomes; -Encourages research in and evaluation of the results of various organizational strategies designed to bring about quantifiable improvements in patient outcomes; -Fosters the application of quality management science to patient care processes and clinical decision-making; -Fosters cooperation and communication among health care providers, payers and regulators in their efforts to improve the quality of patient outcomes; -Explores links among the various clinical, technical, administrative, and managerial disciplines involved in patient care, as well as the role and responsibilities of organizational governance in ongoing quality management.
期刊最新文献
Categorizing Care Delays and Their Impact on Hospital Length of Stay. Experimental Study on Video Discharge Instructions for Pediatric Fever in an Emergency Department. Assessment of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program for Enhancing Clinical Knowledge in Neonatal Care Settings With High Antimicrobial Resistance. Changes in Clinical Competence of Novice Physical Therapists During Their First Year of Employment: A Single Center Retrospective Observational Study in Japan. Integrating DMAIC Philosophy and Bow-Tie Model for Quantitative Risk Assessment in Health Care.
×
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