SQiD 对话:关于以谵妄中的单个问题(SQiD)开始对话的定性研究

Nandita Hely, Megan B. Sands, Anne P.F. Wand
{"title":"SQiD 对话:关于以谵妄中的单个问题(SQiD)开始对话的定性研究","authors":"Nandita Hely, Megan B. Sands, Anne P.F. Wand","doi":"10.56392/001c.92217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Single Question in Delirium (SQiD) is a widely used delirium detection tool utilising discussion between clinicians and informants. This study aims to understand how the SQiD works in clinical settings. Using qualitative methodology, with a grounded theory framework, informant interviews were analysed to understand better how the SQiD works in clinical contexts. Participants were the adult relatives, carers, or friends (informants) of inpatients in an oncology ward at an acute hospital in Sydney, Australia. The informant was an available person whom staff would ordinarily approach for collateral information. The SQiD was administered and recorded by nursing staff. The recording was transcribed verbatim, checked, and then thematically analysed independently by two researchers. Themes/subthemes were determined and discussed until consensus was reached, then reviewed with a third researcher. Patient demographics, including documented diagnosis of delirium, were extracted from their Electronic Medical Record. Of 29 interviews, 15 patients screened positive for delirium, six of whom had a documented diagnosis of delirium. Emergent themes included recognition of “confusion”, operational factors, and the SQiD outcome. The overarching themes were clinician investment and interest in the process, communication techniques, and knowledge of delirium and other cognitive disorders. This study indicates that the SQiD’s usefulness might be enhanced by providing clinicians with specific education about delirium, and differentiation between delirium and other neurocognitive disorders. Moreover, education could be accompanied by measures to encourage clinicians to extend SQiD discussions, act on SQiD findings, and embed the SQiD in clinical practice through implementation strategies. Clinician investment was inconsistent and warrants further investigation.","PeriodicalId":72776,"journal":{"name":"Delirium communications","volume":"22 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SQiD talks: A qualitative study about starting conversations with the single question in delirium (SQiD)\",\"authors\":\"Nandita Hely, Megan B. Sands, Anne P.F. Wand\",\"doi\":\"10.56392/001c.92217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Single Question in Delirium (SQiD) is a widely used delirium detection tool utilising discussion between clinicians and informants. This study aims to understand how the SQiD works in clinical settings. Using qualitative methodology, with a grounded theory framework, informant interviews were analysed to understand better how the SQiD works in clinical contexts. Participants were the adult relatives, carers, or friends (informants) of inpatients in an oncology ward at an acute hospital in Sydney, Australia. The informant was an available person whom staff would ordinarily approach for collateral information. The SQiD was administered and recorded by nursing staff. The recording was transcribed verbatim, checked, and then thematically analysed independently by two researchers. Themes/subthemes were determined and discussed until consensus was reached, then reviewed with a third researcher. Patient demographics, including documented diagnosis of delirium, were extracted from their Electronic Medical Record. Of 29 interviews, 15 patients screened positive for delirium, six of whom had a documented diagnosis of delirium. Emergent themes included recognition of “confusion”, operational factors, and the SQiD outcome. The overarching themes were clinician investment and interest in the process, communication techniques, and knowledge of delirium and other cognitive disorders. This study indicates that the SQiD’s usefulness might be enhanced by providing clinicians with specific education about delirium, and differentiation between delirium and other neurocognitive disorders. Moreover, education could be accompanied by measures to encourage clinicians to extend SQiD discussions, act on SQiD findings, and embed the SQiD in clinical practice through implementation strategies. Clinician investment was inconsistent and warrants further investigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Delirium communications\",\"volume\":\"22 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Delirium communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56392/001c.92217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Delirium communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56392/001c.92217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

谵妄单一问题(SQiD)是一种广泛使用的谵妄检测工具,利用临床医生和信息提供者之间的讨论进行检测。本研究旨在了解 SQiD 如何在临床环境中运行。本研究采用定性方法和基础理论框架,对信息提供者访谈进行分析,以更好地了解 SQiD 如何在临床环境中运行。参与者是澳大利亚悉尼一家急症医院肿瘤科病房住院患者的成年亲属、照顾者或朋友(信息提供者)。信息提供者是工作人员通常会向其询问相关信息的人。SQiD 由护理人员实施并记录。录音由两名研究人员逐字转录、核对,然后独立进行主题分析。确定主题/次主题并进行讨论,直至达成共识,然后由第三位研究人员进行审核。从患者的电子病历中提取患者的人口统计数据,包括谵妄诊断记录。在 29 次访谈中,15 名患者的谵妄筛查结果呈阳性,其中 6 人有谵妄诊断记录。新出现的主题包括对 "混乱 "的认识、操作因素和 SQiD 结果。最重要的主题是临床医生对这一过程的投入和兴趣、沟通技巧以及对谵妄和其他认知障碍的了解。本研究表明,通过向临床医生提供有关谵妄的具体教育,以及区分谵妄和其他神经认知障碍,可以提高 SQiD 的实用性。此外,在开展教育的同时,还可采取措施鼓励临床医生扩展 SQiD 讨论,根据 SQiD 研究结果采取行动,并通过实施策略将 SQiD 融入临床实践。临床医生的投入并不一致,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
SQiD talks: A qualitative study about starting conversations with the single question in delirium (SQiD)
The Single Question in Delirium (SQiD) is a widely used delirium detection tool utilising discussion between clinicians and informants. This study aims to understand how the SQiD works in clinical settings. Using qualitative methodology, with a grounded theory framework, informant interviews were analysed to understand better how the SQiD works in clinical contexts. Participants were the adult relatives, carers, or friends (informants) of inpatients in an oncology ward at an acute hospital in Sydney, Australia. The informant was an available person whom staff would ordinarily approach for collateral information. The SQiD was administered and recorded by nursing staff. The recording was transcribed verbatim, checked, and then thematically analysed independently by two researchers. Themes/subthemes were determined and discussed until consensus was reached, then reviewed with a third researcher. Patient demographics, including documented diagnosis of delirium, were extracted from their Electronic Medical Record. Of 29 interviews, 15 patients screened positive for delirium, six of whom had a documented diagnosis of delirium. Emergent themes included recognition of “confusion”, operational factors, and the SQiD outcome. The overarching themes were clinician investment and interest in the process, communication techniques, and knowledge of delirium and other cognitive disorders. This study indicates that the SQiD’s usefulness might be enhanced by providing clinicians with specific education about delirium, and differentiation between delirium and other neurocognitive disorders. Moreover, education could be accompanied by measures to encourage clinicians to extend SQiD discussions, act on SQiD findings, and embed the SQiD in clinical practice through implementation strategies. Clinician investment was inconsistent and warrants further investigation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信