在医院环境中使用基于视频的决策支持干预来支持心肺复苏的共享决策:一项多站点前后试点研究。

CMAJ open Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20190022
J. You, D. Jayaraman, M. Swinton, Xuran Jiang, D. Heyland
{"title":"在医院环境中使用基于视频的决策支持干预来支持心肺复苏的共享决策:一项多站点前后试点研究。","authors":"J. You, D. Jayaraman, M. Swinton, Xuran Jiang, D. Heyland","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20190022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nInpatients are often prescribed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without a shared decision-making process. Since implementation of decision aids into practice is highly sensitive to the clinical milieu, we performed a pilot study to refine our study procedures and to evaluate the acceptability and potential effectiveness of a shared decision-making intervention when implemented in a Canadian hospital setting.\n\n\nMETHODS\nIn this before-after pilot study, we recruited patients and family members on the medical wards of 2 Canadian teaching hospitals between September 2015 and March 2017. The intervention consisted of viewing a CPR decision video and completing a values-clarification worksheet; follow-up discussion with the physician was encouraged. The primary feasibility outcome was acceptability of the video, and the primary effectiveness outcome was change in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (lower scores being more desirable) after the intervention. Participants rated the extent of shared decision-making using the CollaboRATE instrument.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf the 71 participants (43 patients with a mean age of 79.0 [standard deviation (SD) 11.4] yr and 28 family members with a mean age of 61.0 [SD 10.0] yr), 65 (92%) rated the CPR decision video as good to excellent. The intervention was associated with an improvement in knowledge about CPR (+2.7 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 3.3, effect size 1.5) and a reduction in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (-18.1 points, 95% CI -21.8 to -14.3, effect size 1.4). The 36 participants who had a discussion with a physician about CPR after watching the video rated the extent of shared decision-making as 6.3 (SD 1.7) (possible maximum score 9). There was a nonsignificant decrease in the proportion of patients with a medical order for CPR after the intervention (71% before v. 63% after, p = 0.06).\n\n\nINTERPRETATION\nThe CPR decision video was acceptable to patients and family members. Our decision-support intervention may improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict and reduce the prevalence of medical orders for CPR in the Canadian hospital setting.","PeriodicalId":93946,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.9778/cmajo.20190022","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supporting shared decision-making about cardiopulmonary resuscitation using a video-based decision-support intervention in a hospital setting: a multisite before-after pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"J. You, D. Jayaraman, M. Swinton, Xuran Jiang, D. Heyland\",\"doi\":\"10.9778/cmajo.20190022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nInpatients are often prescribed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without a shared decision-making process. Since implementation of decision aids into practice is highly sensitive to the clinical milieu, we performed a pilot study to refine our study procedures and to evaluate the acceptability and potential effectiveness of a shared decision-making intervention when implemented in a Canadian hospital setting.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nIn this before-after pilot study, we recruited patients and family members on the medical wards of 2 Canadian teaching hospitals between September 2015 and March 2017. The intervention consisted of viewing a CPR decision video and completing a values-clarification worksheet; follow-up discussion with the physician was encouraged. The primary feasibility outcome was acceptability of the video, and the primary effectiveness outcome was change in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (lower scores being more desirable) after the intervention. Participants rated the extent of shared decision-making using the CollaboRATE instrument.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nOf the 71 participants (43 patients with a mean age of 79.0 [standard deviation (SD) 11.4] yr and 28 family members with a mean age of 61.0 [SD 10.0] yr), 65 (92%) rated the CPR decision video as good to excellent. The intervention was associated with an improvement in knowledge about CPR (+2.7 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 3.3, effect size 1.5) and a reduction in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (-18.1 points, 95% CI -21.8 to -14.3, effect size 1.4). The 36 participants who had a discussion with a physician about CPR after watching the video rated the extent of shared decision-making as 6.3 (SD 1.7) (possible maximum score 9). There was a nonsignificant decrease in the proportion of patients with a medical order for CPR after the intervention (71% before v. 63% after, p = 0.06).\\n\\n\\nINTERPRETATION\\nThe CPR decision video was acceptable to patients and family members. Our decision-support intervention may improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict and reduce the prevalence of medical orders for CPR in the Canadian hospital setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CMAJ open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.9778/cmajo.20190022\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CMAJ open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20190022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20190022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

背景患者通常在没有共同决策过程的情况下接受心肺复苏术。由于决策辅助措施在实践中的实施对临床环境高度敏感,我们进行了一项试点研究,以完善我们的研究程序,并评估在加拿大医院实施共享决策干预的可接受性和潜在有效性。方法在这项前后试点研究中,我们在2015年9月至2017年3月期间在加拿大两家教学医院的医疗病房招募了患者和家属。干预包括观看心肺复苏决策视频和完成价值观澄清工作表;鼓励与医生进行后续讨论。主要可行性结果是视频的可接受性,主要有效性结果是干预后决策冲突量表得分的变化(得分越低越好)。参与者使用CollaboRATE工具对共同决策的程度进行评分。结果在71名参与者中(43名患者平均年龄79.0[SD 11.4]岁,28名家庭成员平均年龄61.0[SD 10.0]岁),65人(92%)将CPR决策视频评为良好至优秀。该干预措施与心肺复苏知识的提高(+2.7分,95%置信区间[CI]2.2至3.3,效果大小1.5)和决策冲突量表得分的降低(-18.1分,95%可信区间-21.8至-14.3,效果大小1.4)有关。36名参与者在观看视频后与医生讨论了心肺复苏术,他们将共同决策的程度评定为6.3(SD 1.7)(可能的最高分数为9)。干预后,有CPR医嘱的患者比例没有显著下降(干预前71%,干预后63%,p=0.06)。解释CPR决策视频对患者和家属来说是可以接受的。我们的决策支持干预可以提高知识,减少决策冲突,并降低加拿大医院CPR医嘱的流行率。
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
Supporting shared decision-making about cardiopulmonary resuscitation using a video-based decision-support intervention in a hospital setting: a multisite before-after pilot study.
BACKGROUND Inpatients are often prescribed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without a shared decision-making process. Since implementation of decision aids into practice is highly sensitive to the clinical milieu, we performed a pilot study to refine our study procedures and to evaluate the acceptability and potential effectiveness of a shared decision-making intervention when implemented in a Canadian hospital setting. METHODS In this before-after pilot study, we recruited patients and family members on the medical wards of 2 Canadian teaching hospitals between September 2015 and March 2017. The intervention consisted of viewing a CPR decision video and completing a values-clarification worksheet; follow-up discussion with the physician was encouraged. The primary feasibility outcome was acceptability of the video, and the primary effectiveness outcome was change in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (lower scores being more desirable) after the intervention. Participants rated the extent of shared decision-making using the CollaboRATE instrument. RESULTS Of the 71 participants (43 patients with a mean age of 79.0 [standard deviation (SD) 11.4] yr and 28 family members with a mean age of 61.0 [SD 10.0] yr), 65 (92%) rated the CPR decision video as good to excellent. The intervention was associated with an improvement in knowledge about CPR (+2.7 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 3.3, effect size 1.5) and a reduction in the Decisional Conflict Scale score (-18.1 points, 95% CI -21.8 to -14.3, effect size 1.4). The 36 participants who had a discussion with a physician about CPR after watching the video rated the extent of shared decision-making as 6.3 (SD 1.7) (possible maximum score 9). There was a nonsignificant decrease in the proportion of patients with a medical order for CPR after the intervention (71% before v. 63% after, p = 0.06). INTERPRETATION The CPR decision video was acceptable to patients and family members. Our decision-support intervention may improve knowledge, reduce decisional conflict and reduce the prevalence of medical orders for CPR in the Canadian hospital setting.
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
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correction to "Validity of diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canadian administrative health data: a multiprovince, population-based cohort study". Neighbourhood deprivation, distance to nearest comprehensive stroke centre and access to endovascular thrombectomy for ischemic stroke: a population-based study. Social determinants of access to timely elective surgery in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional population level study. The success of publicly funded rotavirus vaccine programs for preventing community- and hospital-acquired rotavirus infections in Canadian pediatric hospitals: an observational study. Trends in hospital coding for people experiencing homelessness in Canada, 2015-2020: a descriptive 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