Barriers and facilitators for cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with people with heart failure.

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0314631
Matilda M M Barnes-Harris, Sushma Datla, Alexandra Abel, Andrew L Clark, Miriam J Johnson
{"title":"Barriers and facilitators for cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with people with heart failure.","authors":"Matilda M M Barnes-Harris, Sushma Datla, Alexandra Abel, Andrew L Clark, Miriam J Johnson","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0314631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Care planning with people with advanced heart failure enables appropriate care, and prevents futile interventions, such as cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR).</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore what motivates clinicians to conduct, and people with heart failure and their carers, to engage in well-conducted CPR discussions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-depth remote interviews with i) people with heart failure and self-reported daily symptoms (≥ 3 months), ii) informal carers and, iii) clinicians recruited through social media and professional groups, team contacts and snowballing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and subjected to framework analysis. Findings were mapped to the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour change model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two themes were generated from 23 interviews: a) the cardio-pulmonary resuscitation discussion: preparation; who should conduct discussions; what should happen during discussions; impact on future discussions; b) Understanding of the: patient's health status; and purpose and likely outcome of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. For clinicians, ensuring preparation time, education, and support provided physical and psychological capability. For all, constructive experiences and a realistic understanding of health status and likely cardio-pulmonary resuscitation outcome motivated engagement in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation discussions providing opportunity for patient involvement in decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For all, constructive past experiences of important conversations motivates engagement with CPR discussions. A realistic understanding of health status and likely cardio-pulmonary resuscitation outcome (all stakeholders), and training, skills, preparation and multidisciplinary support (clinicians) provide physical and psychological capability. Findings should inform organisational structures and training to ensure opportunity for this important clinical practice to take place.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0314631"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11687877/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314631","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Care planning with people with advanced heart failure enables appropriate care, and prevents futile interventions, such as cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Aim: To explore what motivates clinicians to conduct, and people with heart failure and their carers, to engage in well-conducted CPR discussions.

Methods: In-depth remote interviews with i) people with heart failure and self-reported daily symptoms (≥ 3 months), ii) informal carers and, iii) clinicians recruited through social media and professional groups, team contacts and snowballing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and subjected to framework analysis. Findings were mapped to the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour change model.

Results: Two themes were generated from 23 interviews: a) the cardio-pulmonary resuscitation discussion: preparation; who should conduct discussions; what should happen during discussions; impact on future discussions; b) Understanding of the: patient's health status; and purpose and likely outcome of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. For clinicians, ensuring preparation time, education, and support provided physical and psychological capability. For all, constructive experiences and a realistic understanding of health status and likely cardio-pulmonary resuscitation outcome motivated engagement in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation discussions providing opportunity for patient involvement in decision-making.

Conclusions: For all, constructive past experiences of important conversations motivates engagement with CPR discussions. A realistic understanding of health status and likely cardio-pulmonary resuscitation outcome (all stakeholders), and training, skills, preparation and multidisciplinary support (clinicians) provide physical and psychological capability. Findings should inform organisational structures and training to ensure opportunity for this important clinical practice to take place.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

与心力衰竭患者讨论心肺复苏的障碍和促进因素。
背景:对晚期心力衰竭患者进行护理规划可以实现适当的护理,并防止无效的干预措施,如心肺复苏(CPR)。目的:探讨是什么促使临床医生、心力衰竭患者及其护理人员进行良好的心肺复苏术讨论。方法:对i)心力衰竭患者和自我报告的每日症状(≥3个月),ii)非正式护理人员和iii)通过社交媒体和专业团体,团队联系和滚雪球方式招募的临床医生进行深度远程访谈。访谈录音、转录、匿名并进行框架分析。结果被映射到能力,机会,动机-行为改变模型。结果:23个访谈产生了两个主题:a)心肺复苏讨论:准备;谁应该进行讨论;讨论过程中应该发生什么;对未来讨论的影响;b)了解患者的健康状况;以及心肺复苏的目的和可能的结果。对于临床医生来说,确保准备时间、教育和支持所提供的生理和心理能力。总的来说,建设性的经验和对健康状况和可能的心肺复苏结果的现实理解激发了心肺复苏讨论的参与,为患者参与决策提供了机会。结论:对于所有人来说,建设性的重要谈话的过去经验激励参与心肺复苏术的讨论。对健康状况和可能的心肺复苏结果(所有利益相关者)以及培训、技能、准备和多学科支持(临床医生)的现实理解提供了身体和心理能力。研究结果应告知组织结构和培训,以确保有机会进行这一重要的临床实践。
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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信