Clinical empathy in a medium and high-risk Brazilian unit.

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Nursing Ethics Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1177/09697330241238334
Cristina Ortiz Sobrinho Valete, Aline Albuquerque, Esther Angelica Luiz Ferreira
{"title":"Clinical empathy in a medium and high-risk Brazilian unit.","authors":"Cristina Ortiz Sobrinho Valete, Aline Albuquerque, Esther Angelica Luiz Ferreira","doi":"10.1177/09697330241238334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical empathy is an essential part of healthcare, and patient-centered care models require clinical empathy to be established. Despite this, little is known about its measurement in the neonatal scenario.</p><p><strong>Research aim: </strong>To measure clinical empathy in health professionals who work with medium and high-risk neonates and build a construct of this empathy.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>Single-center survey study.</p><p><strong>Participants and research context: </strong>The Jefferson Scale of Empathy for Health Professionals questionnaire was applied to health professionals who work in an intensive care unit and a medium-risk unit, in Brazil. Analysis was done using descriptive statistics and a factor analysis model, to build the construct of empathy. Overall empathy was calculated, and the domains' punctuations were analyzed and compared to the maximum punctuation possible. The study followed the STROBE checklist.</p><p><strong>Ethical considerations: </strong>This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the institution. All participants signed the informed consent form. Participants' confidentiality and anonymity were protected.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Median empathy was 117 (IQR 113-124). The domain of Walking in the Patient's Shoes had lower scores and represented 77.6% of the maximum punctuation possible. The factor analysis included three factors named Understanding, Experiences, and Treatment, and Emotional Relationships, explaining 64.3% of the overall variance. The domain Walking in the Patient's Shoes was not included in the model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this scenario, clinical empathy should improve. There is a need to improve the domain of Walking in the Patient's Shoes, in this case, the neonate, and provide more empathic care to them.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"212-221"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330241238334","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical empathy is an essential part of healthcare, and patient-centered care models require clinical empathy to be established. Despite this, little is known about its measurement in the neonatal scenario.

Research aim: To measure clinical empathy in health professionals who work with medium and high-risk neonates and build a construct of this empathy.

Research design: Single-center survey study.

Participants and research context: The Jefferson Scale of Empathy for Health Professionals questionnaire was applied to health professionals who work in an intensive care unit and a medium-risk unit, in Brazil. Analysis was done using descriptive statistics and a factor analysis model, to build the construct of empathy. Overall empathy was calculated, and the domains' punctuations were analyzed and compared to the maximum punctuation possible. The study followed the STROBE checklist.

Ethical considerations: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the institution. All participants signed the informed consent form. Participants' confidentiality and anonymity were protected.

Findings: Median empathy was 117 (IQR 113-124). The domain of Walking in the Patient's Shoes had lower scores and represented 77.6% of the maximum punctuation possible. The factor analysis included three factors named Understanding, Experiences, and Treatment, and Emotional Relationships, explaining 64.3% of the overall variance. The domain Walking in the Patient's Shoes was not included in the model.

Conclusions: In this scenario, clinical empathy should improve. There is a need to improve the domain of Walking in the Patient's Shoes, in this case, the neonate, and provide more empathic care to them.

巴西中高风险单位的临床同理心。
背景:临床同理心是医疗保健的重要组成部分,以患者为中心的医疗模式需要建立临床同理心。研究目的:测量从事中高风险新生儿护理工作的医护人员的临床同理心,并构建同理心的结构:研究设计:单中心调查研究:杰斐逊医护人员移情量表调查问卷适用于在巴西重症监护室和中危监护室工作的医护人员。采用描述性统计和因子分析模型进行分析,以构建移情的概念。计算了总体同理心,分析了各领域的标点符号,并与可能的最大标点符号进行了比较。本研究采用了 STROBE 检查表:本研究获得了该机构研究伦理委员会的批准。所有参与者都签署了知情同意书。参与者的保密性和匿名性得到了保护:移情中位数为 117(IQR 113-124)。站在患者角度思考问题的领域得分较低,占标点符号最大值的 77.6%。因子分析包括三个因子,分别名为 "理解"、"经历"、"治疗 "和 "情感关系",解释了总体变异的 64.3%。模型中不包括 "站在患者的角度 "这一领域:结论:在这种情况下,临床同理心应得到改善。有必要改进 "与病人同行 "这一领域,在这种情况下,应为新生儿提供更多移情护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信