Setting Up for Success: Caregiver Perspectives on Emergency Care Plans for Children With Medical Complexity.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Abbey Dallas, Faith Williams, Eva Gómez, Divya Lakhaney, Suzanne Friedman, Peter S Dayan, Christian D Pulcini
{"title":"Setting Up for Success: Caregiver Perspectives on Emergency Care Plans for Children With Medical Complexity.","authors":"Abbey Dallas, Faith Williams, Eva Gómez, Divya Lakhaney, Suzanne Friedman, Peter S Dayan, Christian D Pulcini","doi":"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Providing high-quality emergency care to children with medical complexity (CMC) is a known challenge. Although academic societies have endorsed emergency care plans (ECPs) to mitigate this challenge, they have not been widely adopted and implemented. Our primary aim was to characterize the perspectives of caregivers of CMC on ECPs, including preferred content, format, and implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an electronic survey of English and Spanish-speaking caregivers of CMC at an urban academic medical center. The survey was designed by an expert panel with feedback from the institution's family advisory council. The survey included 4 Likert Scales, 22 multiple-choice, and 4 open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and a univariate analysis was performed based on whether the respondents had ECPs. We reviewed open-ended responses to identify common themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-eight (21.6%) of 454 eligible caregivers responded to the survey. A majority of respondents cared for children with technology dependence (72.3%) and were English-speaking (80%). Most (73.2%) respondents felt ECPs would be helpful. Detailed health information (ie, list of medical problems, medication list) was rated as the most useful content. The preferred format was in the electronic health record or an online application. There was no significant difference in responses if caregivers had existing ECPs or not.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ECPs are widely supported by caregivers of CMC. Caregivers thought detailed health information was the most useful content, and that plans should be accessed digitally. These findings can inform the adoption and implementation of ECPs for CMC.</p>","PeriodicalId":19996,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003371","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Providing high-quality emergency care to children with medical complexity (CMC) is a known challenge. Although academic societies have endorsed emergency care plans (ECPs) to mitigate this challenge, they have not been widely adopted and implemented. Our primary aim was to characterize the perspectives of caregivers of CMC on ECPs, including preferred content, format, and implementation.

Methods: We conducted an electronic survey of English and Spanish-speaking caregivers of CMC at an urban academic medical center. The survey was designed by an expert panel with feedback from the institution's family advisory council. The survey included 4 Likert Scales, 22 multiple-choice, and 4 open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and a univariate analysis was performed based on whether the respondents had ECPs. We reviewed open-ended responses to identify common themes.

Results: Ninety-eight (21.6%) of 454 eligible caregivers responded to the survey. A majority of respondents cared for children with technology dependence (72.3%) and were English-speaking (80%). Most (73.2%) respondents felt ECPs would be helpful. Detailed health information (ie, list of medical problems, medication list) was rated as the most useful content. The preferred format was in the electronic health record or an online application. There was no significant difference in responses if caregivers had existing ECPs or not.

Conclusions: ECPs are widely supported by caregivers of CMC. Caregivers thought detailed health information was the most useful content, and that plans should be accessed digitally. These findings can inform the adoption and implementation of ECPs for CMC.

为成功奠定基础:护理人员对医疗复杂性儿童紧急护理计划的看法。
目的:为患有医疗复杂性(CMC)的儿童提供高质量的急诊护理是一项众所周知的挑战。虽然学术团体已经认可了紧急护理计划(ECPs)来减轻这一挑战,但它们尚未被广泛采用和实施。我们的主要目的是描述CMC护理人员对ECPs的看法,包括首选的内容、格式和实施。方法:我们对一家城市学术医疗中心的英语和西班牙语CMC护理人员进行了电子调查。这项调查是由一个专家小组根据该机构家庭咨询委员会的反馈设计的。调查包括4个李克特量表,22个选择题和4个开放式问题。定量数据采用描述性统计进行分析,并根据受访者是否患有ECPs进行单变量分析。我们审查了开放式回答,以确定共同主题。结果:454名符合条件的护理人员中有98名(21.6%)回复了调查。大多数受访者照顾有技术依赖的儿童(72.3%),会说英语(80%)。大多数(73.2%)受访者认为ECPs会有所帮助。详细的健康信息(即医疗问题清单,药物清单)被评为最有用的内容。首选格式是电子健康记录或在线应用程序。护理人员是否有ecp,在反应上没有显著差异。结论:ECPs得到CMC护理人员的广泛支持。护理人员认为详细的健康信息是最有用的内容,计划应该以数字方式访问。这些发现可以为CMC采用和实施ECPs提供信息。
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
Pediatric emergency care
Pediatric emergency care 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
577
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Emergency Care®, features clinically relevant original articles with an EM perspective on the care of acutely ill or injured children and adolescents. The journal is aimed at both the pediatrician who wants to know more about treating and being compensated for minor emergency cases and the emergency physicians who must treat children or adolescents in more than one case in there.
×
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