从重大医疗事件中学习:系统回顾

Tristan Price, R. Baines, M. Marshall, Niall Cameron, M. Bryce, J. Archer
{"title":"从重大医疗事件中学习:系统回顾","authors":"Tristan Price, R. Baines, M. Marshall, Niall Cameron, M. Bryce, J. Archer","doi":"10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rationale, aims and objectives: Learning from significant medical events is a core component of quality and safety practice in healthcare worldwide and is a key component of efforts to increase the person-centeredness of clinical service. However, the evidence that analysis of, or reflection on, significant events has a positive impact on subsequent doctor performance is relatively sparse. This review aims to explore the impact of undertaking significant event analysis on medical performance. Method: A systematic review using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Citation searches were carried out on included studies. Impact was defined according to a modified adaptation of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model. The selection and quality appraisal of studies was conducted by 2 reviewers, independently and blinded. Data were extracted from included studies related to: study type and location, population, methodology and intervention type. Results: Six papers met the inclusion criteria for this review. Of these: one reported learners’ reaction (Kirkpatrick 1); 2 reported modified attitudes (modified Kirkpatrick 2a); 5 reported the acquisition of knowledge (modified Kirkpatrick level 2b) and all 6 identified reported changes in behaviour (modified Kirkpatrick level 3a). Significant event analysis is reported to identify gaps in knowledge, improve teamwork and communication and encourage reflection leading to improvements in practice. Time, resources and team dynamics were identified as factors that impacted on the effectiveness of significant event analysis. Significant event analysis may benefit from suspending existing hierarchies during the process itself and external facilitation. Conclusion: There is a lack of high quality evidence within the existing literature to ascertain the effectiveness of significant event analysis in the medical context. Existing studies are largely based on self-reported measures, which may reinforce the importance of the discursive process for practitioners. Future research could be directed at identifying the pedagogical processes that effect changes in performance as a result of engaging in significant event analysis, leading to substantial increase in the person-centeredness of clinical care.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"416 1","pages":"228-237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning from significant medical events: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Tristan Price, R. Baines, M. Marshall, Niall Cameron, M. Bryce, J. Archer\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rationale, aims and objectives: Learning from significant medical events is a core component of quality and safety practice in healthcare worldwide and is a key component of efforts to increase the person-centeredness of clinical service. However, the evidence that analysis of, or reflection on, significant events has a positive impact on subsequent doctor performance is relatively sparse. This review aims to explore the impact of undertaking significant event analysis on medical performance. Method: A systematic review using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Citation searches were carried out on included studies. Impact was defined according to a modified adaptation of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model. The selection and quality appraisal of studies was conducted by 2 reviewers, independently and blinded. Data were extracted from included studies related to: study type and location, population, methodology and intervention type. Results: Six papers met the inclusion criteria for this review. Of these: one reported learners’ reaction (Kirkpatrick 1); 2 reported modified attitudes (modified Kirkpatrick 2a); 5 reported the acquisition of knowledge (modified Kirkpatrick level 2b) and all 6 identified reported changes in behaviour (modified Kirkpatrick level 3a). Significant event analysis is reported to identify gaps in knowledge, improve teamwork and communication and encourage reflection leading to improvements in practice. Time, resources and team dynamics were identified as factors that impacted on the effectiveness of significant event analysis. Significant event analysis may benefit from suspending existing hierarchies during the process itself and external facilitation. Conclusion: There is a lack of high quality evidence within the existing literature to ascertain the effectiveness of significant event analysis in the medical context. Existing studies are largely based on self-reported measures, which may reinforce the importance of the discursive process for practitioners. Future research could be directed at identifying the pedagogical processes that effect changes in performance as a result of engaging in significant event analysis, leading to substantial increase in the person-centeredness of clinical care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"volume\":\"416 1\",\"pages\":\"228-237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal for person centered healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1637\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal for person centered healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/EJPCH.V7I2.1637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

基本原理、目的和目标:从重大医疗事件中学习是全球医疗保健质量和安全实践的核心组成部分,也是努力提高临床服务以人为本的关键组成部分。然而,对重大事件的分析或反思对医生后续绩效有积极影响的证据相对较少。本综述旨在探讨进行重大事件分析对医疗绩效的影响。方法:使用PubMed、EMBASE、Medline、PsycINFO和Cochrane协作库进行系统综述。对纳入的研究进行引文检索。影响的定义是根据Kirkpatrick评估模型的修改适应。研究的选择和质量评价由2位独立的盲法审稿人进行。数据从纳入的研究中提取,涉及研究类型和地点、人群、方法和干预类型。结果:6篇论文符合本综述的纳入标准。其中:一个报告学习者的反应(Kirkpatrick 1);2例报告的态度改变(修正Kirkpatrick 2a);5个报告了知识的获得(修改的Kirkpatrick等级2b),所有6个报告了行为的变化(修改的Kirkpatrick等级3a)。报告重大事件分析,以确定知识差距,改善团队合作和沟通,并鼓励反思,从而改进实践。时间、资源和团队动态被确定为影响重大事件分析有效性的因素。重大事件分析可能受益于在过程本身和外部促进期间暂停现有的层次结构。结论:现有文献中缺乏高质量的证据来确定医学背景下重大事件分析的有效性。现有的研究主要是基于自我报告的测量,这可能会加强语篇过程对从业者的重要性。未来的研究可以针对识别教学过程,这些教学过程会由于参与重大事件分析而影响表现的变化,从而导致临床护理中以人为本的显著增加。
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
Learning from significant medical events: a systematic review
Rationale, aims and objectives: Learning from significant medical events is a core component of quality and safety practice in healthcare worldwide and is a key component of efforts to increase the person-centeredness of clinical service. However, the evidence that analysis of, or reflection on, significant events has a positive impact on subsequent doctor performance is relatively sparse. This review aims to explore the impact of undertaking significant event analysis on medical performance. Method: A systematic review using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Citation searches were carried out on included studies. Impact was defined according to a modified adaptation of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model. The selection and quality appraisal of studies was conducted by 2 reviewers, independently and blinded. Data were extracted from included studies related to: study type and location, population, methodology and intervention type. Results: Six papers met the inclusion criteria for this review. Of these: one reported learners’ reaction (Kirkpatrick 1); 2 reported modified attitudes (modified Kirkpatrick 2a); 5 reported the acquisition of knowledge (modified Kirkpatrick level 2b) and all 6 identified reported changes in behaviour (modified Kirkpatrick level 3a). Significant event analysis is reported to identify gaps in knowledge, improve teamwork and communication and encourage reflection leading to improvements in practice. Time, resources and team dynamics were identified as factors that impacted on the effectiveness of significant event analysis. Significant event analysis may benefit from suspending existing hierarchies during the process itself and external facilitation. Conclusion: There is a lack of high quality evidence within the existing literature to ascertain the effectiveness of significant event analysis in the medical context. Existing studies are largely based on self-reported measures, which may reinforce the importance of the discursive process for practitioners. Future research could be directed at identifying the pedagogical processes that effect changes in performance as a result of engaging in significant event analysis, leading to substantial increase in the person-centeredness of clinical care.
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
期刊最新文献
The ethical and epistemic roles of narrative in person-centred healthcare Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice? Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care Persons over models: shared decision-making for person-centered medicine lifestyle and degeneracy
×
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