患者参与--18 个月的肾脏护理中患者和工作人员的观点:一项混合方法研究,探讨促进员工以人为本的效果。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Caroline Hurtig, Liselott Årestedt, Fredrik Uhlin, Ann Catrine Eldh
{"title":"患者参与--18 个月的肾脏护理中患者和工作人员的观点:一项混合方法研究,探讨促进员工以人为本的效果。","authors":"Caroline Hurtig, Liselott Årestedt, Fredrik Uhlin, Ann Catrine Eldh","doi":"10.1111/jep.14099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Patient participation should encapsulate the individual's resources and needs, though such standards remain rationed for people living with a long-term health concern like kidney failure.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To illustrate what patient participation signified to patients and staff in kidney care, and whether an agreed or disagreed conceptualisation occurred over time, evaluating the influence of two study-specific interventions to facilitate more person-centred participation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>By convergent mixed methods design across 9 units in Sweden, we repeated the following data collection at 3 time points over 18 months: semistructured interviews with patients and staff (n = 72), and structured reviews for accounts of participation in patient records (n = 240). Data were subjected to content analysis and descriptive statistics, respectively. The outcomes were appraised for changes over time besides the interventions to enhance attention to patients' participation: a clinical tool and guidance distributed to management, and additional local support, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both patients and staff described patient participation as a comprehension of the disease and its management in everyday life. Yet, patients accentuated participation as one's experiences being recognised, and mutual knowledge exchange. Instead, staff emphasised the patients managing their treatment. The health records primarily represented what staff do to support their notion of patient participation. No influence of the interventions was noted, but what signified patient participation was maintained over time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both patients and staff stress the importance of patient participation, although they focus on different elements. Further person-centred conduct warrants a shared conceptualisation and strategies addressing and scaffolding patients' preferences and means.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient participation-18 months of patient and staff perspectives in kidney care: A mixed methods study addressing the effects of facilitating staff person-centredness.\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Hurtig, Liselott Årestedt, Fredrik Uhlin, Ann Catrine Eldh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.14099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Patient participation should encapsulate the individual's resources and needs, though such standards remain rationed for people living with a long-term health concern like kidney failure.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To illustrate what patient participation signified to patients and staff in kidney care, and whether an agreed or disagreed conceptualisation occurred over time, evaluating the influence of two study-specific interventions to facilitate more person-centred participation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>By convergent mixed methods design across 9 units in Sweden, we repeated the following data collection at 3 time points over 18 months: semistructured interviews with patients and staff (n = 72), and structured reviews for accounts of participation in patient records (n = 240). Data were subjected to content analysis and descriptive statistics, respectively. The outcomes were appraised for changes over time besides the interventions to enhance attention to patients' participation: a clinical tool and guidance distributed to management, and additional local support, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both patients and staff described patient participation as a comprehension of the disease and its management in everyday life. Yet, patients accentuated participation as one's experiences being recognised, and mutual knowledge exchange. Instead, staff emphasised the patients managing their treatment. The health records primarily represented what staff do to support their notion of patient participation. No influence of the interventions was noted, but what signified patient participation was maintained over time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both patients and staff stress the importance of patient participation, although they focus on different elements. Further person-centred conduct warrants a shared conceptualisation and strategies addressing and scaffolding patients' preferences and means.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14099\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14099","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:患者参与应囊括个人的资源和需求,但对于肾衰竭等长期健康问题患者而言,这种标准仍然是有限的。目的:说明患者参与对肾脏护理患者和工作人员的意义,以及随着时间的推移,是否出现了一致或不一致的概念,评估两项特定研究干预措施的影响,以促进更加以人为本的参与:我们在瑞典的 9 个单位采用融合混合方法设计,在 18 个月内的 3 个时间点重复收集以下数据:对患者和员工进行半结构化访谈(n = 72),对患者病历中的参与情况进行结构化审查(n = 240)。数据分别进行了内容分析和描述性统计。除了采取干预措施加强对患者参与的关注外,还对结果进行了评估,这些干预措施包括向管理层分发临床工具和指南,以及提供额外的地方支持:结果:患者和医务人员都认为患者的参与是对疾病的理解,以及在日常生活中对疾病的管理。然而,患者更强调参与是对自身经验的认可和知识的相互交流。相反,医务人员则强调由患者来管理自己的治疗。健康记录主要体现了工作人员为支持患者参与概念所做的工作。我们没有注意到干预措施的影响,但象征着患者参与的东西随着时间的推移得以保持:患者和医务人员都强调了患者参与的重要性,尽管他们关注的重点不同。进一步开展 "以人为本 "的活动需要共同的概念和策略,以满足和支持患者的偏好和方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient participation-18 months of patient and staff perspectives in kidney care: A mixed methods study addressing the effects of facilitating staff person-centredness.

Rationale: Patient participation should encapsulate the individual's resources and needs, though such standards remain rationed for people living with a long-term health concern like kidney failure.

Aims: To illustrate what patient participation signified to patients and staff in kidney care, and whether an agreed or disagreed conceptualisation occurred over time, evaluating the influence of two study-specific interventions to facilitate more person-centred participation.

Method: By convergent mixed methods design across 9 units in Sweden, we repeated the following data collection at 3 time points over 18 months: semistructured interviews with patients and staff (n = 72), and structured reviews for accounts of participation in patient records (n = 240). Data were subjected to content analysis and descriptive statistics, respectively. The outcomes were appraised for changes over time besides the interventions to enhance attention to patients' participation: a clinical tool and guidance distributed to management, and additional local support, respectively.

Results: Both patients and staff described patient participation as a comprehension of the disease and its management in everyday life. Yet, patients accentuated participation as one's experiences being recognised, and mutual knowledge exchange. Instead, staff emphasised the patients managing their treatment. The health records primarily represented what staff do to support their notion of patient participation. No influence of the interventions was noted, but what signified patient participation was maintained over time.

Conclusion: Both patients and staff stress the importance of patient participation, although they focus on different elements. Further person-centred conduct warrants a shared conceptualisation and strategies addressing and scaffolding patients' preferences and means.

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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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