护理计划是否适合多种情况的管理?

Journal of comorbidity Pub Date : 2016-10-26 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.15256/joc.2016.6.79
Charlotte E Young, Frances M Boyle, Allyson J Mutch
{"title":"护理计划是否适合多种情况的管理?","authors":"Charlotte E Young,&nbsp;Frances M Boyle,&nbsp;Allyson J Mutch","doi":"10.15256/joc.2016.6.79","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Care plans have been part of the primary care landscape in Australia for almost two decades. With an increasing number of patients presenting with multiple chronic conditions, it is timely to consider whether care plans meet the needs of patients and clinicians.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review and benchmark existing care plan templates that include recommendations for comorbid conditions, against four key criteria: (i) patient preferences, (ii) setting priorities, (iii) identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions, and (iv) setting dates for reviewing the care plan.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Document analysis of Australian care plan templates published from 2006 to 2014 that incorporated recommendations for managing comorbid conditions in primary care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen templates were reviewed. All of the care plan templates addressed patient preference, but this was not done comprehensively. Only three templates included setting priorities. None assisted in identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions. Fifteen templates included setting a date for reviewing the care plan.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Care plans are a well-used tool in primary care practice, but their current format perpetuates a single-disease approach to care, which works contrary to their intended purpose. Restructuring care plans to incorporate shared decision-making and attention to patient preferences may assist in shifting the focus back to the patient and their care needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":92071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comorbidity","volume":"6 2","pages":"103-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15256/joc.2016.6.79","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are care plans suitable for the management of multiple conditions?\",\"authors\":\"Charlotte E Young,&nbsp;Frances M Boyle,&nbsp;Allyson J Mutch\",\"doi\":\"10.15256/joc.2016.6.79\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Care plans have been part of the primary care landscape in Australia for almost two decades. With an increasing number of patients presenting with multiple chronic conditions, it is timely to consider whether care plans meet the needs of patients and clinicians.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review and benchmark existing care plan templates that include recommendations for comorbid conditions, against four key criteria: (i) patient preferences, (ii) setting priorities, (iii) identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions, and (iv) setting dates for reviewing the care plan.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Document analysis of Australian care plan templates published from 2006 to 2014 that incorporated recommendations for managing comorbid conditions in primary care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen templates were reviewed. All of the care plan templates addressed patient preference, but this was not done comprehensively. Only three templates included setting priorities. None assisted in identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions. Fifteen templates included setting a date for reviewing the care plan.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Care plans are a well-used tool in primary care practice, but their current format perpetuates a single-disease approach to care, which works contrary to their intended purpose. Restructuring care plans to incorporate shared decision-making and attention to patient preferences may assist in shifting the focus back to the patient and their care needs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":92071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comorbidity\",\"volume\":\"6 2\",\"pages\":\"103-113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15256/joc.2016.6.79\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comorbidity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15256/joc.2016.6.79\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comorbidity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15256/joc.2016.6.79","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景:近二十年来,护理计划一直是澳大利亚初级保健的一部分。随着越来越多的患者出现多种慢性疾病,考虑护理计划是否满足患者和临床医生的需求是及时的。目的:根据四个关键标准,对包括合并症建议在内的现有护理计划模板进行审查和基准测试:(i)患者偏好,(ii)确定优先事项,(iii)确定疾病之间的冲突和协同作用,以及(iv)确定审查护理计划的日期。设计:对2006年至2014年发布的澳大利亚护理计划模板进行文件分析,这些模板纳入了初级保健中管理合并症的建议。结果:回顾了16个模板。所有的护理计划模板都解决了患者的偏好,但这并不全面。只有三个模板包括设置优先级。没有一项有助于确定各种条件之间的冲突和协同作用。15个模板包括设定检查护理计划的日期。结论:护理计划在初级保健实践中是一种广泛使用的工具,但其目前的形式使单一疾病的护理方法永久化,这与其预期目的背道而驰。重组护理计划,将共同决策和对患者偏好的关注纳入其中,可能有助于将焦点转移回患者及其护理需求上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Are care plans suitable for the management of multiple conditions?

Background: Care plans have been part of the primary care landscape in Australia for almost two decades. With an increasing number of patients presenting with multiple chronic conditions, it is timely to consider whether care plans meet the needs of patients and clinicians.

Objectives: To review and benchmark existing care plan templates that include recommendations for comorbid conditions, against four key criteria: (i) patient preferences, (ii) setting priorities, (iii) identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions, and (iv) setting dates for reviewing the care plan.

Design: Document analysis of Australian care plan templates published from 2006 to 2014 that incorporated recommendations for managing comorbid conditions in primary care.

Results: Sixteen templates were reviewed. All of the care plan templates addressed patient preference, but this was not done comprehensively. Only three templates included setting priorities. None assisted in identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions. Fifteen templates included setting a date for reviewing the care plan.

Conclusions: Care plans are a well-used tool in primary care practice, but their current format perpetuates a single-disease approach to care, which works contrary to their intended purpose. Restructuring care plans to incorporate shared decision-making and attention to patient preferences may assist in shifting the focus back to the patient and their care needs.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Experiences of older primary care patients with multimorbidity and their caregivers in navigating the healthcare system: A qualitative study protocol. Bi-directional association between depression and HF: An electronic health records-based cohort study. The association between clusters of chronic conditions and psychological well-being in younger and older people-A cross-sectional, population-based study from the Lolland-Falster Health Study, Denmark. The complexity of caregiving for community-living older adults with multiple chronic conditions: A qualitative study. Synergistic effects of hip/knee osteoarthritis and comorbidities on mobility and self-care limitations among older adults: Cross-sectional analysis of the Oxford pain, Activity and Lifestyle 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