Consensus-Based Safety Recommendations for Informal Home Care: A Mixed Methods Study.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Research in Nursing & Health Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-15 DOI:10.1002/nur.70074
Nida Abed, Vanessa Ribeiro Neves, Valerie Matarredona Perez, Daniel Monasor Ortola, Virginia Ferrer García, Bojana Knezevic, Paulo Sousa, Reinhard Strametz, Mercedes Guilabert, José Joaquín Mira
{"title":"Consensus-Based Safety Recommendations for Informal Home Care: A Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Nida Abed, Vanessa Ribeiro Neves, Valerie Matarredona Perez, Daniel Monasor Ortola, Virginia Ferrer García, Bojana Knezevic, Paulo Sousa, Reinhard Strametz, Mercedes Guilabert, José Joaquín Mira","doi":"10.1002/nur.70074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As home-based care expands globally, informal caregivers are responsible for medical and nursing responsibilities, raising serious concerns about safety and risk management. This study proposes expert-informed, safety recommendations tailored to informal caregiving in home settings. The study used a six-phase mixed methods design combining a Consensus Development Conference (CDC) process with elements of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). In the first five phases, 13 healthcare professionals, hereafter referred to as \"the professionals\" (10 nurses, one physician, one occupational therapist, and one social worker), engaged in deliberations and risk assessments. The professionals agreed on 15 caregiving domains such as medication administration, mobility, and caregiver well-being, mapped them to 53 home caregiving procedures, identified 160 potential failure modes (errors), and rated the effect severity of each failure mode. This process led to the development of an initial set of 450 safety recommendations. In the final phase, a multidisciplinary expert review conducted by the research team merged overlapping items, eliminating redundancies and ensuring accuracy, confirming 53 procedures, 147 distinct failure modes (errors), refining 213 procedure failure mode effect associations, and consolidating the corpus to 288 recommendations. The resulting recommendations are intended to guide the development of safety guidance for informal caregiving in home settings. These recommendations are considered expert-derived guidance, since end users did not participate in the study.</p>","PeriodicalId":54492,"journal":{"name":"Research in Nursing & Health","volume":" ","pages":"543-552"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13539635/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Nursing & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.70074","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As home-based care expands globally, informal caregivers are responsible for medical and nursing responsibilities, raising serious concerns about safety and risk management. This study proposes expert-informed, safety recommendations tailored to informal caregiving in home settings. The study used a six-phase mixed methods design combining a Consensus Development Conference (CDC) process with elements of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). In the first five phases, 13 healthcare professionals, hereafter referred to as "the professionals" (10 nurses, one physician, one occupational therapist, and one social worker), engaged in deliberations and risk assessments. The professionals agreed on 15 caregiving domains such as medication administration, mobility, and caregiver well-being, mapped them to 53 home caregiving procedures, identified 160 potential failure modes (errors), and rated the effect severity of each failure mode. This process led to the development of an initial set of 450 safety recommendations. In the final phase, a multidisciplinary expert review conducted by the research team merged overlapping items, eliminating redundancies and ensuring accuracy, confirming 53 procedures, 147 distinct failure modes (errors), refining 213 procedure failure mode effect associations, and consolidating the corpus to 288 recommendations. The resulting recommendations are intended to guide the development of safety guidance for informal caregiving in home settings. These recommendations are considered expert-derived guidance, since end users did not participate in the study.

基于共识的非正式家庭护理安全建议:一项混合方法研究。
随着以家庭为基础的护理在全球扩大,非正式护理人员承担着医疗和护理责任,引发了对安全和风险管理的严重关切。这项研究提出了专家知情的安全建议,适合家庭环境中的非正式护理。该研究采用六阶段混合方法设计,将共识发展会议(CDC)过程与失效模式和影响分析(FMEA)相结合。在前五个阶段,13名保健专业人员(以下简称“专业人员”)(10名护士、1名医生、1名职业治疗师和1名社会工作者)参与审议和风险评估。专家们就15个护理领域达成一致,如药物管理、移动性和护理人员的幸福感,将它们映射到53个家庭护理程序中,确定了160个潜在的失败模式(错误),并对每种失败模式的影响严重程度进行了评级。这个过程产生了最初的450项安全建议。在最后阶段,研究小组进行了多学科专家评审,合并了重叠项目,消除了冗余并确保了准确性,确认了53个程序,147个不同的失效模式(错误),提炼了213个程序失效模式效应关联,并将语料库整合为288条建议。由此产生的建议旨在指导制定家庭环境中非正式照料的安全指南。这些建议被认为是来自专家的指导,因为最终用户没有参与这项研究。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research in Nursing & Health ( RINAH ) is a peer-reviewed general research journal devoted to publication of a wide range of research that will inform the practice of nursing and other health disciplines. The editors invite reports of research describing problems and testing interventions related to health phenomena, health care and self-care, clinical organization and administration; and the testing of research findings in practice. Research protocols are considered if funded in a peer-reviewed process by an agency external to the authors’ home institution and if the work is in progress. Papers on research methods and techniques are appropriate if they go beyond what is already generally available in the literature and include description of successful use of the method. Theory papers are accepted if each proposition is supported by research evidence. Systematic reviews of the literature are reviewed if PRISMA guidelines are followed. Letters to the editor commenting on published articles are welcome.
×
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
小红书