新颖的重症监护室沟通干预("让我们谈谈")的可行性和可接受性,以及利用沟通的多重目标理论进行的初步评估。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-12 DOI:10.1177/10499091231176296
Lauren J Van Scoy, Allison M Scott, Jacob Higgins, Emily Wasserman, Daren Heyland, Vernon Chinchilli, Michael J Green
{"title":"新颖的重症监护室沟通干预(\"让我们谈谈\")的可行性和可接受性,以及利用沟通的多重目标理论进行的初步评估。","authors":"Lauren J Van Scoy, Allison M Scott, Jacob Higgins, Emily Wasserman, Daren Heyland, Vernon Chinchilli, Michael J Green","doi":"10.1177/10499091231176296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Family members of intensive care unit (ICU) patients often report poor communication, feeling unprepared for ICU family meetings, and poor psychological outcomes after decision-making. The objective of this study was to create a tool to prepare families for ICU family meetings and assess feasibility of using Communication Quality Analysis (CQA) to measure communication quality of family meetings. <b>Methods:</b> This observational study was conducted at an academic tertiary care center in Hershey, PA from March 2019 to 2020. Phase 1a involved conceptual design. Phase 1b entailed acceptability testing of 2 versions of the tool (text-only, comic) with 9 family members of non-capacitated ICU patients; thematic analysis of semi-strucutred interviews was conducted. Phase 1c assessed feasibility of applying CQA to audio-recorded ICU family meetings (n = 17); 3 analysts used CQA to assess 6 domains of communication quality. Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used to interpret CQA scores. <b>Results:</b> Four themes emerged from Phase 1b interviews: participants 1) found the tool useful for meeting preparation and organizing thoughts, 2) appreciated emotional content, 3) preferred the comic form (67%), and 4) had indifferent or negative perceptions about specific elements. In Phase 1c, clinicians scored higher on the CQA content and engagement domains; family members scored higher on the emotion domain. CQA scores in the relationship and face domains had the lowest quality ratings. <b>Conclusions:</b> <i>Let's Talk</i> may help families become better prepared for ICU family meetings. CQA provides a feasible approach to assessing communication quality that identifies specific areas of strengths and weaknesses in communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"373-382"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10885768/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility and Acceptability of a Novel Intensive Care Unit Communication Intervention (\\\"Let's Talk\\\") and Initial Assessment Using the Multiple Goals Theory of Communication.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren J Van Scoy, Allison M Scott, Jacob Higgins, Emily Wasserman, Daren Heyland, Vernon Chinchilli, Michael J Green\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091231176296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Family members of intensive care unit (ICU) patients often report poor communication, feeling unprepared for ICU family meetings, and poor psychological outcomes after decision-making. The objective of this study was to create a tool to prepare families for ICU family meetings and assess feasibility of using Communication Quality Analysis (CQA) to measure communication quality of family meetings. <b>Methods:</b> This observational study was conducted at an academic tertiary care center in Hershey, PA from March 2019 to 2020. Phase 1a involved conceptual design. Phase 1b entailed acceptability testing of 2 versions of the tool (text-only, comic) with 9 family members of non-capacitated ICU patients; thematic analysis of semi-strucutred interviews was conducted. Phase 1c assessed feasibility of applying CQA to audio-recorded ICU family meetings (n = 17); 3 analysts used CQA to assess 6 domains of communication quality. Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used to interpret CQA scores. <b>Results:</b> Four themes emerged from Phase 1b interviews: participants 1) found the tool useful for meeting preparation and organizing thoughts, 2) appreciated emotional content, 3) preferred the comic form (67%), and 4) had indifferent or negative perceptions about specific elements. In Phase 1c, clinicians scored higher on the CQA content and engagement domains; family members scored higher on the emotion domain. CQA scores in the relationship and face domains had the lowest quality ratings. <b>Conclusions:</b> <i>Let's Talk</i> may help families become better prepared for ICU family meetings. CQA provides a feasible approach to assessing communication quality that identifies specific areas of strengths and weaknesses in communication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"373-382\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10885768/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231176296\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231176296","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重症监护病房(ICU)患者的家属经常反映沟通不畅、对 ICU 家庭会议感觉毫无准备以及决策后心理结果不佳。本研究旨在开发一种工具,帮助家属为 ICU 家属会议做好准备,并评估使用沟通质量分析法(CQA)衡量家属会议沟通质量的可行性。研究方法本观察性研究于 2019 年 3 月至 2020 年在宾夕法尼亚州赫尔希的一家学术三级护理中心进行。第 1a 阶段涉及概念设计。第 1b 阶段需要对 2 个版本的工具(纯文字版和漫画版)进行可接受性测试,测试对象为 9 名非瘫痪重症监护病房患者的家属;对半抽样访谈进行了主题分析。第 1c 阶段评估了将 CQA 应用于 ICU 家庭会议录音(n = 17)的可行性;3 名分析师使用 CQA 评估了沟通质量的 6 个领域。采用 Wilcoxon Signed Rank 检验来解释 CQA 分数。结果:第 1b 阶段的访谈中出现了四个主题:参与者 1) 认为该工具有助于会议准备和整理思路;2) 欣赏情感内容;3) 更喜欢漫画形式(67%);4) 对特定元素持无所谓或负面看法。在第 1c 阶段,临床医生在 CQA 内容和参与领域得分较高;家庭成员在情感领域得分较高。关系和面孔领域的 CQA 分数最低。结论:让我们谈谈 "可以帮助家属更好地准备 ICU 家庭会议。CQA 为评估沟通质量提供了一种可行的方法,可以确定沟通中的具体强项和弱项。
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
Feasibility and Acceptability of a Novel Intensive Care Unit Communication Intervention ("Let's Talk") and Initial Assessment Using the Multiple Goals Theory of Communication.

Background: Family members of intensive care unit (ICU) patients often report poor communication, feeling unprepared for ICU family meetings, and poor psychological outcomes after decision-making. The objective of this study was to create a tool to prepare families for ICU family meetings and assess feasibility of using Communication Quality Analysis (CQA) to measure communication quality of family meetings. Methods: This observational study was conducted at an academic tertiary care center in Hershey, PA from March 2019 to 2020. Phase 1a involved conceptual design. Phase 1b entailed acceptability testing of 2 versions of the tool (text-only, comic) with 9 family members of non-capacitated ICU patients; thematic analysis of semi-strucutred interviews was conducted. Phase 1c assessed feasibility of applying CQA to audio-recorded ICU family meetings (n = 17); 3 analysts used CQA to assess 6 domains of communication quality. Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used to interpret CQA scores. Results: Four themes emerged from Phase 1b interviews: participants 1) found the tool useful for meeting preparation and organizing thoughts, 2) appreciated emotional content, 3) preferred the comic form (67%), and 4) had indifferent or negative perceptions about specific elements. In Phase 1c, clinicians scored higher on the CQA content and engagement domains; family members scored higher on the emotion domain. CQA scores in the relationship and face domains had the lowest quality ratings. Conclusions: Let's Talk may help families become better prepared for ICU family meetings. CQA provides a feasible approach to assessing communication quality that identifies specific areas of strengths and weaknesses in communication.

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
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Perceptions of Families and Nurses After Signing a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order for Patients in Respiratory Care Wards Differences in Timely Goals of Care Discussions in Nursing Homes Among Black Residents A Way Forward for Comprehensive Cancer Caregiver Support Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity Antibiotics at End of Life: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? A Narrative Review
×
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