谁在重症监护室教住院医生?对学术医学中心跨专业教学的看法。

IF 1.7 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE ATS scholar Pub Date : 2023-07-25 eCollection Date: 2023-09-01 DOI:10.34197/ats-scholar.2023-0008OC
Camille R Petri, Christine P Beltran, Amy M Sullivan, Asha Anandaiah
{"title":"谁在重症监护室教住院医生?对学术医学中心跨专业教学的看法。","authors":"Camille R Petri,&nbsp;Christine P Beltran,&nbsp;Amy M Sullivan,&nbsp;Asha Anandaiah","doi":"10.34197/ats-scholar.2023-0008OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Teamwork is essential for high-quality care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Interprofessional education has been widely endorsed as a way of promoting collaborative practice. Interprofessional providers (IPPs), including nurses, pharmacists, and respiratory therapists (RTs), routinely participate in multidisciplinary rounds in the ICU, but their role in teaching residents at academic medical centers has yet to be characterized.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize perceptions of interprofessional teaching during and outside of rounds in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians, internal medicine residents, nurses, pharmacists, and RTs across three ICUs at a tertiary academic medical center from September 2019 to March 2020. The frequency of different types of rounds contributions was rated on a Likert scale. Means and medians were compared across groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 221 of 285 participants completed the survey (78% response rate). All IPPs described that they report data, provide clinical observations, and make recommendations frequently during ICU rounds, but teaching occurred infrequently (mean values, nurses = 2.9; pharmacists = 3.5; RTs = 3.7; 1 = not at all; 5 = always). Nurses were least likely to report teaching (<i>P</i> = 0.0017). From residents' and attendings' perspectives, pharmacists taught most frequently (mean values, 3.7 and 3.4, respectively). RTs self-report of teaching was higher than physicians' reports of RT teaching (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). Outside of rounds, residents reported a low frequency of teaching by nurses and RTs (means, nurses = 3.1; RTs = 3.1), but they reported a high rate of teaching by pharmacists (mean, 4.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nonphysician IPPs routinely participate in ICU rounds but teach medical trainees infrequently. Physicians' perception of IPP teaching frequency was generally lower than self-reports by IPPs. Exploring modifiers of interprofessional teaching may enhance education and collaboration.</p>","PeriodicalId":72330,"journal":{"name":"ATS scholar","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/39/ats-scholar.2023-0008OC.PMC10547100.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Is Teaching Residents in the Intensive Care Unit? Perceptions of Interprofessional Teaching at an Academic Medical Center.\",\"authors\":\"Camille R Petri,&nbsp;Christine P Beltran,&nbsp;Amy M Sullivan,&nbsp;Asha Anandaiah\",\"doi\":\"10.34197/ats-scholar.2023-0008OC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Teamwork is essential for high-quality care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Interprofessional education has been widely endorsed as a way of promoting collaborative practice. Interprofessional providers (IPPs), including nurses, pharmacists, and respiratory therapists (RTs), routinely participate in multidisciplinary rounds in the ICU, but their role in teaching residents at academic medical centers has yet to be characterized.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To characterize perceptions of interprofessional teaching during and outside of rounds in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians, internal medicine residents, nurses, pharmacists, and RTs across three ICUs at a tertiary academic medical center from September 2019 to March 2020. The frequency of different types of rounds contributions was rated on a Likert scale. Means and medians were compared across groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 221 of 285 participants completed the survey (78% response rate). All IPPs described that they report data, provide clinical observations, and make recommendations frequently during ICU rounds, but teaching occurred infrequently (mean values, nurses = 2.9; pharmacists = 3.5; RTs = 3.7; 1 = not at all; 5 = always). Nurses were least likely to report teaching (<i>P</i> = 0.0017). From residents' and attendings' perspectives, pharmacists taught most frequently (mean values, 3.7 and 3.4, respectively). RTs self-report of teaching was higher than physicians' reports of RT teaching (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). Outside of rounds, residents reported a low frequency of teaching by nurses and RTs (means, nurses = 3.1; RTs = 3.1), but they reported a high rate of teaching by pharmacists (mean, 4.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nonphysician IPPs routinely participate in ICU rounds but teach medical trainees infrequently. Physicians' perception of IPP teaching frequency was generally lower than self-reports by IPPs. Exploring modifiers of interprofessional teaching may enhance education and collaboration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ATS scholar\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/39/ats-scholar.2023-0008OC.PMC10547100.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ATS scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2023-0008OC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATS scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2023-0008OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:团队合作对于重症监护室(ICU)的高质量护理至关重要。跨专业教育已被广泛认可为促进合作实践的一种方式。跨专业提供者(IPP),包括护士、药剂师和呼吸治疗师(RT),定期参加ICU的多学科查房,但他们在学术医疗中心教授住院医师方面的作用尚未确定。目的:描述ICU查房期间和查房外对跨专业教学的看法。方法:作者于2019年9月至2020年3月在一家三级学术医疗中心的三个重症监护室对重症监护医生、内科住院医师、护士、药剂师和RT进行了横断面调查。不同类型轮次贡献的频率采用Likert量表进行评分。比较各组的平均值和中位数。结果:285名参与者中共有221人完成了调查(78%的回答率)。所有IPP都描述说,他们在ICU查房期间经常报告数据、提供临床观察并提出建议,但很少进行教学(平均值,护士 = 2.9;药剂师 = 3.5;RT = 3.7;1. = 一点也不;5. = 始终)。护士报告教学的可能性最小(P = 0.0017)。从住院医师和就诊者的角度来看,药剂师的授课频率最高(平均值分别为3.7和3.4)。RT的教学自我报告高于医生的RT教学报告(P 结论:非物理学家IPP经常参加ICU查房,但很少教授医学实习生。医师对IPP教学频率的认知通常低于IPP的自我报告。探索跨专业教学的修饰语可以加强教育和合作。
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

摘要图片

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
Who Is Teaching Residents in the Intensive Care Unit? Perceptions of Interprofessional Teaching at an Academic Medical Center.

Background: Teamwork is essential for high-quality care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Interprofessional education has been widely endorsed as a way of promoting collaborative practice. Interprofessional providers (IPPs), including nurses, pharmacists, and respiratory therapists (RTs), routinely participate in multidisciplinary rounds in the ICU, but their role in teaching residents at academic medical centers has yet to be characterized.

Objective: To characterize perceptions of interprofessional teaching during and outside of rounds in the ICU.

Methods: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care physicians, internal medicine residents, nurses, pharmacists, and RTs across three ICUs at a tertiary academic medical center from September 2019 to March 2020. The frequency of different types of rounds contributions was rated on a Likert scale. Means and medians were compared across groups.

Results: A total of 221 of 285 participants completed the survey (78% response rate). All IPPs described that they report data, provide clinical observations, and make recommendations frequently during ICU rounds, but teaching occurred infrequently (mean values, nurses = 2.9; pharmacists = 3.5; RTs = 3.7; 1 = not at all; 5 = always). Nurses were least likely to report teaching (P = 0.0017). From residents' and attendings' perspectives, pharmacists taught most frequently (mean values, 3.7 and 3.4, respectively). RTs self-report of teaching was higher than physicians' reports of RT teaching (P < 0.0001). Outside of rounds, residents reported a low frequency of teaching by nurses and RTs (means, nurses = 3.1; RTs = 3.1), but they reported a high rate of teaching by pharmacists (mean, 4.4).

Conclusion: Nonphysician IPPs routinely participate in ICU rounds but teach medical trainees infrequently. Physicians' perception of IPP teaching frequency was generally lower than self-reports by IPPs. Exploring modifiers of interprofessional teaching may enhance education and collaboration.

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
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Competency in Communication Skills: Curriculum Is Just the Beginning. Nonsurgical Treatment for Symptomatic Pulmonary Aspergilloma. Reply to Han and Kher: Treatment of Simple Pulmonary Aspergilloma. Video Speaks a Thousand Words: A Novel Educational Tool in Airway Management. Reply to Boppana and Mirsaeidi: Nonsurgical Treatment for Symptomatic Pulmonary Aspergilloma. Reply to Patel and LaNou: The Missing Piece: The Intersection of Pharmacist Board Certification and Tobacco Use Disorder Treatment.
×
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