急诊科分诊的患者体验:综合评述

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Carrie Janerka , Gavin D. Leslie , Fenella J. Gill
{"title":"急诊科分诊的患者体验:综合评述","authors":"Carrie Janerka ,&nbsp;Gavin D. Leslie ,&nbsp;Fenella J. Gill","doi":"10.1016/j.ienj.2024.101456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Emergency department (ED) triage is often patients’ first contact with a health service and a critical point for patient experience. This review aimed to understand patient experience of ED triage and the waiting room.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic six-stage approach guided the integrative review. Medline, CINAHL, EmCare, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and JBI database were systematically searched for primary research published between 2000–2022 that reported patient experience of ED triage and/or waiting room. Quality was assessed using established critical appraisal tools. Data were analysed for descriptive statistics and themes using the constant comparison method.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-nine articles were included. Studies were mostly observational (n = 17), conducted at a single site (n = 23), and involved low-moderate acuity patients (n = 13). Nine interventions were identified. Five themes emerged: ‘the who, what and how of triage’, ‘the patient as a person’, ‘to know or not to know’, ‘the waiting game’, and ‘to leave or not to leave’.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Wait times, initiation of assessment and treatment, information provision and interactions with triage staff appeared to have the most impact on patient experience, though patients’ desires for each varied. A person-centred approach to triage is recommended.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48914,"journal":{"name":"International Emergency Nursing","volume":"74 ","pages":"Article 101456"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X2400051X/pdfft?md5=292be3edbdc75783d19a7a9f6906eead&pid=1-s2.0-S1755599X2400051X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient experience of emergency department triage: An integrative review\",\"authors\":\"Carrie Janerka ,&nbsp;Gavin D. Leslie ,&nbsp;Fenella J. Gill\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ienj.2024.101456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Emergency department (ED) triage is often patients’ first contact with a health service and a critical point for patient experience. This review aimed to understand patient experience of ED triage and the waiting room.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic six-stage approach guided the integrative review. Medline, CINAHL, EmCare, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and JBI database were systematically searched for primary research published between 2000–2022 that reported patient experience of ED triage and/or waiting room. Quality was assessed using established critical appraisal tools. Data were analysed for descriptive statistics and themes using the constant comparison method.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-nine articles were included. Studies were mostly observational (n = 17), conducted at a single site (n = 23), and involved low-moderate acuity patients (n = 13). Nine interventions were identified. Five themes emerged: ‘the who, what and how of triage’, ‘the patient as a person’, ‘to know or not to know’, ‘the waiting game’, and ‘to leave or not to leave’.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Wait times, initiation of assessment and treatment, information provision and interactions with triage staff appeared to have the most impact on patient experience, though patients’ desires for each varied. A person-centred approach to triage is recommended.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Emergency Nursing\",\"volume\":\"74 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101456\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X2400051X/pdfft?md5=292be3edbdc75783d19a7a9f6906eead&pid=1-s2.0-S1755599X2400051X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Emergency Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X2400051X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Emergency Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X2400051X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景急诊科(ED)分诊往往是患者与医疗服务的第一次接触,也是患者体验的关键点。本综述旨在了解患者对急诊科分诊和候诊室的体验。方法 采用六阶段系统方法进行综合综述。系统检索了 Medline、CINAHL、EmCare、Scopus、ProQuest、Cochrane Library 和 JBI 数据库中 2000-2022 年间发表的、报道急诊室分诊和/或候诊室患者体验的主要研究。采用既定的批判性评价工具对研究质量进行评估。采用恒定比较法对数据进行描述性统计和主题分析。研究大多为观察性研究(17 篇),在单一地点进行(23 篇),涉及中低度急症患者(13 篇)。共确定了九项干预措施。结论等待时间、开始评估和治疗、信息提供以及与分诊人员的互动似乎对患者体验影响最大,尽管患者对每项内容的需求各不相同。建议采用以人为本的分诊方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient experience of emergency department triage: An integrative review

Background

Emergency department (ED) triage is often patients’ first contact with a health service and a critical point for patient experience. This review aimed to understand patient experience of ED triage and the waiting room.

Methods

A systematic six-stage approach guided the integrative review. Medline, CINAHL, EmCare, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and JBI database were systematically searched for primary research published between 2000–2022 that reported patient experience of ED triage and/or waiting room. Quality was assessed using established critical appraisal tools. Data were analysed for descriptive statistics and themes using the constant comparison method.

Results

Twenty-nine articles were included. Studies were mostly observational (n = 17), conducted at a single site (n = 23), and involved low-moderate acuity patients (n = 13). Nine interventions were identified. Five themes emerged: ‘the who, what and how of triage’, ‘the patient as a person’, ‘to know or not to know’, ‘the waiting game’, and ‘to leave or not to leave’.

Conclusion

Wait times, initiation of assessment and treatment, information provision and interactions with triage staff appeared to have the most impact on patient experience, though patients’ desires for each varied. A person-centred approach to triage is recommended.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: International Emergency Nursing is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to nurses and other professionals involved in emergency care. It aims to promote excellence through dissemination of high quality research findings, specialist knowledge and discussion of professional issues that reflect the diversity of this field. With an international readership and authorship, it provides a platform for practitioners worldwide to communicate and enhance the evidence-base of emergency care. The journal publishes a broad range of papers, from personal reflection to primary research findings, created by first-time through to reputable authors from a number of disciplines. It brings together research from practice, education, theory, and operational management, relevant to all levels of staff working in emergency care settings worldwide.
×
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