Discussions about goals of care in the emergency department: a qualitative study of emergency physicians' opinions using the normalization process theory.

IF 2.4
CJEM Pub Date : 2025-06-08 DOI:10.1007/s43678-025-00911-8
Fannie Péloquin, Émile Marmen, Véronique Gélinas, Ariane Plaisance, Maude Linteau, Audrey Nolet, Nathalie Germain, Patrick M Archambault
{"title":"Discussions about goals of care in the emergency department: a qualitative study of emergency physicians' opinions using the normalization process theory.","authors":"Fannie Péloquin, Émile Marmen, Véronique Gélinas, Ariane Plaisance, Maude Linteau, Audrey Nolet, Nathalie Germain, Patrick M Archambault","doi":"10.1007/s43678-025-00911-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explored emergency department (ED) physicians' opinions about leading goals of care discussions in their daily practice. We contextualized our findings within the current landscape of ED goals of care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This qualitative study was based on the Normalization Process Theory. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of ten emergency physicians from one academic ED (Lévis, Canada) and aimed to reach data saturation. Using a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis, we codified the interviews under the four Normalization Process Theory constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 10 emergency physicians. Fourteen themes were identified as factors influencing the feasibility of implementing goals of care discussions in the ED: (1) interpersonal communication, (2) efficiency of care, (3) anxiety generated by the discussion, (4) meeting between clinicians, patients and family, (5) importance of goals of care during handover, (6) deterioration catalyzing the goals of care discussions, (7) lack of training, (8) availability of protocols, (9) heterogeneous prioritization of goals of care discussions, (10) take action before the ED, (11) need for education, (12) legislation, (13) adapt the ED environment, and (14) requirement to lead goals of care discussions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Goals of care discussions are possible and essential with selected ED patients. Physicians identified outstanding needs to normalize goals of care discussions in their practice: education for both themselves and patients on the concept of goals of care discussions, legislative action for the systematization of goals of care discussions for patients, and proactive documentation of patients' preferences pre-ED. Patient, clinician and system-level policy-making efforts remain necessary to address these needs and ensure the normalization of goals of care discussions in emergency physicians' daily practice as suggested by clinical guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00911-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We explored emergency department (ED) physicians' opinions about leading goals of care discussions in their daily practice. We contextualized our findings within the current landscape of ED goals of care.

Methods: This qualitative study was based on the Normalization Process Theory. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of ten emergency physicians from one academic ED (Lévis, Canada) and aimed to reach data saturation. Using a mixed deductive and inductive thematic analysis, we codified the interviews under the four Normalization Process Theory constructs: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring.

Results: We interviewed 10 emergency physicians. Fourteen themes were identified as factors influencing the feasibility of implementing goals of care discussions in the ED: (1) interpersonal communication, (2) efficiency of care, (3) anxiety generated by the discussion, (4) meeting between clinicians, patients and family, (5) importance of goals of care during handover, (6) deterioration catalyzing the goals of care discussions, (7) lack of training, (8) availability of protocols, (9) heterogeneous prioritization of goals of care discussions, (10) take action before the ED, (11) need for education, (12) legislation, (13) adapt the ED environment, and (14) requirement to lead goals of care discussions.

Conclusion: Goals of care discussions are possible and essential with selected ED patients. Physicians identified outstanding needs to normalize goals of care discussions in their practice: education for both themselves and patients on the concept of goals of care discussions, legislative action for the systematization of goals of care discussions for patients, and proactive documentation of patients' preferences pre-ED. Patient, clinician and system-level policy-making efforts remain necessary to address these needs and ensure the normalization of goals of care discussions in emergency physicians' daily practice as suggested by clinical guidelines.

急诊科护理目标的讨论:运用归一化过程理论对急诊科医师意见的定性研究。
目的:探讨急诊科(ED)医生在日常实践中对护理讨论主要目标的看法。我们将我们的发现置于当前ED护理目标的背景中。方法:采用归一化过程理论进行定性研究。我们对来自一个学术ED(加拿大l vis)的10名急诊医生进行了半结构化访谈,目的是达到数据饱和。使用混合演绎和归纳主题分析,我们在四个规范化过程理论结构下编纂了访谈:连贯性,认知参与,集体行动和反身性监测。结果:我们采访了10名急诊医师。确定了14个主题作为影响ED中实施护理讨论目标可行性的因素:(1)人际沟通,(2)护理效率,(3)讨论产生的焦虑,(4)临床医生,患者和家庭之间的会议,(5)移交期间护理目标的重要性,(6)恶化催化护理讨论目标,(7)缺乏培训,(8)协议的可用性,(9)护理讨论目标的异构优先级,(10)在ED之前采取行动,(11)需要教育,(12)立法,(13)适应ED环境,(14)引导护理讨论目标的要求。结论:对选定的ED患者进行护理讨论的目标是可能的,也是必要的。医生确定了在实践中规范护理讨论目标的突出需求:对自己和患者进行护理讨论目标概念的教育,对患者护理讨论目标进行系统化的立法行动,以及在ed之前对患者偏好进行前瞻性记录。患者、临床医生和系统层面的决策努力仍然是必要的,以满足这些需求,并确保急诊医生日常实践中护理讨论目标的正常化,正如临床指南所建议的那样。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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