[Professional knowledge deficits and knowledge differences in interprofessional discharge planning: A questionnaire study].

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 NURSING
Pflege Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1024/1012-5302/a001037
Matthias J Witti, Julia Wagner, Jan M Zottmann, Martin R Fischer, Anita Hausen, Marc Weidenbusch, Matthias Stadler
{"title":"[Professional knowledge deficits and knowledge differences in interprofessional discharge planning: A questionnaire study].","authors":"Matthias J Witti, Julia Wagner, Jan M Zottmann, Martin R Fischer, Anita Hausen, Marc Weidenbusch, Matthias Stadler","doi":"10.1024/1012-5302/a001037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Professional knowledge deficits and knowledge differences in interprofessional discharge planning: A questionnaire study <b>Abstract:</b> <i>Background:</i> This study focuses on discharge planning (DP), specifically on knowledge deficits and differences between nurses and physicians in Germany. <i>Objectives:</i> To determine and compare the current level of knowledge, as well as potential knowledge deficits and differences, among the studied professional groups with regard to DP. <i>Methods:</i> A knowledge test on DP was developed and content validated. The test consisted of 16 items covering four dimensions of DP knowledge, covering both conceptual and procedural aspects: knowledge of time aspects, knowledge of responsibilities and task sharing, knowledge of legal aspects of insurance, and knowledge of follow-up care. A total of 177 participants completed the knowledge test. The data were analysed descriptively and using Linear Mixed Models (LMM). <i>Results:</i> The results showed that physicians had descriptively satisfactory knowledge (70%) of DP, whereas nursing staff only had sufficient knowledge (60%). With regard to the knowledge dimensions, the participants differed greatly in terms of both conceptual and procedural aspects. In addition, there was a small effect of the professional group on procedural knowledge of responsibilities and task allocation: physicians scored better in the test. No significant differences were found with regard to professional experience. <i>Conclusions:</i> The results suggest that neither professional group has sufficient knowledge to independently fulfil the defined key areas of care in DP.</p>","PeriodicalId":54625,"journal":{"name":"Pflege","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pflege","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1024/1012-5302/a001037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Professional knowledge deficits and knowledge differences in interprofessional discharge planning: A questionnaire study Abstract: Background: This study focuses on discharge planning (DP), specifically on knowledge deficits and differences between nurses and physicians in Germany. Objectives: To determine and compare the current level of knowledge, as well as potential knowledge deficits and differences, among the studied professional groups with regard to DP. Methods: A knowledge test on DP was developed and content validated. The test consisted of 16 items covering four dimensions of DP knowledge, covering both conceptual and procedural aspects: knowledge of time aspects, knowledge of responsibilities and task sharing, knowledge of legal aspects of insurance, and knowledge of follow-up care. A total of 177 participants completed the knowledge test. The data were analysed descriptively and using Linear Mixed Models (LMM). Results: The results showed that physicians had descriptively satisfactory knowledge (70%) of DP, whereas nursing staff only had sufficient knowledge (60%). With regard to the knowledge dimensions, the participants differed greatly in terms of both conceptual and procedural aspects. In addition, there was a small effect of the professional group on procedural knowledge of responsibilities and task allocation: physicians scored better in the test. No significant differences were found with regard to professional experience. Conclusions: The results suggest that neither professional group has sufficient knowledge to independently fulfil the defined key areas of care in DP.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pflege
Pflege NURSING-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pflege ist die erste unabhängige wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für die Gesundheits- und Krankenpflege im deutschen Sprachbereich. Sie trägt zur Entwicklung der Pflegewissenschaft sowie zur Qualität der Pflege in der Praxis bei. Die Zeitschrift versteht sich als umfassendes Forum, in welchem die sich rasch entwickelnden Bereiche der Pflegeforschung, -theorie und -praxis sowie der Ausbildung, des Managements, der Ethik, Geschichte und Politik der Pflege diskutiert werden können. Zusammenfassungen von Forschungsberichten und Mitteilungen aus der internationalen Pflegeszene, Buchbesprechungen und der internationale Kongresskalender ermöglichen der Leserschaft, sich einen Überblick über das aktuelle Geschehen zu verschaffen, sich bezüglich berufsspezifischer Literatur auf dem Laufenden zu halten, um somit die Weiterbildung gezielt zu gestalten. Pflege publiziert Beiträge, die eine hohe Relevanz für Praxis, Forschung, Theorie, Ausbildung, Ethik, Geschichte, Politik und das Management in der Pflege im deutschsprachigen Raum haben. Manuskripte ohne Bezug zur Pflege im deutschsprachigen Raum werden abgelehnt.
×
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