跨专业干预措施对创伤住院患者护理过程中的协作和护理质量产生影响:范围审查

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Alexandra Lapierre , Mélanie Bérubé , Marianne Giroux , Pier-Alexandre Tardif , Valérie Turcotte , Éric Mercier , Andréane Richard-Denis , David Williamson , Lynne Moore
{"title":"跨专业干预措施对创伤住院患者护理过程中的协作和护理质量产生影响:范围审查","authors":"Alexandra Lapierre ,&nbsp;Mélanie Bérubé ,&nbsp;Marianne Giroux ,&nbsp;Pier-Alexandre Tardif ,&nbsp;Valérie Turcotte ,&nbsp;Éric Mercier ,&nbsp;Andréane Richard-Denis ,&nbsp;David Williamson ,&nbsp;Lynne Moore","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Despite the recognized importance of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in trauma care, healthcare professionals often work in silos. Interprofessional (IP) interventions are crucial for optimizing IPC and delivering high-quality care across clinical contexts, yet their effectiveness throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum is not well understood. Thus, this review aimed to examine the literature on the effectiveness of IP interventions on collaboration processes and related outcomes in inpatient trauma care.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. We searched six databases for studies from the last decade on IP interventions in inpatient trauma care. Two independent reviewers categorized IP interventions (education, practice, organization) and extracted their impact on IPC processes and related outcomes (team performance, patient, organization).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 17,397 studies screened, 148 met the inclusion criteria. Most were cohort designs (72%), conducted in level I trauma centers (57%) and emergency departments (51%), and involved surgeons (56%) and nurses (53%). Studies focused on IP organization interventions (51%), such as clinical pathways; IP practice interventions (35%), such as trauma team activation protocols; and IP education interventions (14%) including multi-method education. IP practice interventions most effectively improved team performance results, while IP education interventions primarily improved IPC processes. Positive patient outcomes were limited, with few studies examining organizational effects.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Significant advancements are still required in IP interventions and trauma care research. Future studies should rigorously explore the effectiveness of interventions throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum and focus on developing robust measures for patient and organizational outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"55 11","pages":"Article 111873"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324006028/pdfft?md5=b80c445b664976d2e3a2227f0bf32a62&pid=1-s2.0-S0020138324006028-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interprofessional interventions that impact collaboration and quality of care across inpatient trauma care continuum: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Lapierre ,&nbsp;Mélanie Bérubé ,&nbsp;Marianne Giroux ,&nbsp;Pier-Alexandre Tardif ,&nbsp;Valérie Turcotte ,&nbsp;Éric Mercier ,&nbsp;Andréane Richard-Denis ,&nbsp;David Williamson ,&nbsp;Lynne Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.injury.2024.111873\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Despite the recognized importance of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in trauma care, healthcare professionals often work in silos. Interprofessional (IP) interventions are crucial for optimizing IPC and delivering high-quality care across clinical contexts, yet their effectiveness throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum is not well understood. Thus, this review aimed to examine the literature on the effectiveness of IP interventions on collaboration processes and related outcomes in inpatient trauma care.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. We searched six databases for studies from the last decade on IP interventions in inpatient trauma care. Two independent reviewers categorized IP interventions (education, practice, organization) and extracted their impact on IPC processes and related outcomes (team performance, patient, organization).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 17,397 studies screened, 148 met the inclusion criteria. Most were cohort designs (72%), conducted in level I trauma centers (57%) and emergency departments (51%), and involved surgeons (56%) and nurses (53%). Studies focused on IP organization interventions (51%), such as clinical pathways; IP practice interventions (35%), such as trauma team activation protocols; and IP education interventions (14%) including multi-method education. IP practice interventions most effectively improved team performance results, while IP education interventions primarily improved IPC processes. Positive patient outcomes were limited, with few studies examining organizational effects.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Significant advancements are still required in IP interventions and trauma care research. Future studies should rigorously explore the effectiveness of interventions throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum and focus on developing robust measures for patient and organizational outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"volume\":\"55 11\",\"pages\":\"Article 111873\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324006028/pdfft?md5=b80c445b664976d2e3a2227f0bf32a62&pid=1-s2.0-S0020138324006028-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324006028\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324006028","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言尽管跨专业合作(IPC)在创伤护理中的重要性已得到公认,但医疗保健专业人员往往各自为政。跨专业(IP)干预对于优化 IPC 和在不同临床环境中提供高质量护理至关重要,但其在整个住院创伤护理过程中的有效性却不甚了解。因此,本综述旨在研究 IP 干预措施对创伤住院患者护理协作流程和相关结果的有效性。我们在六个数据库中检索了过去十年中有关创伤住院患者护理中 IP 干预的研究。两位独立评审员对 IP 干预措施(教育、实践、组织)进行了分类,并提取了其对 IPC 流程和相关结果(团队表现、患者、组织)的影响。大部分研究采用队列设计(72%),在一级创伤中心(57%)和急诊科(51%)进行,涉及外科医生(56%)和护士(53%)。研究的重点是综合方案组织干预(51%),如临床路径;综合方案实践干预(35%),如创伤团队激活协议;以及综合方案教育干预(14%),包括多种方法教育。综合方案实践干预措施最有效地改善了团队绩效结果,而综合方案教育干预措施主要改善了 IPC 流程。对患者产生的积极效果有限,很少有研究对组织效果进行审查。未来的研究应严格探讨干预措施在整个住院创伤护理过程中的有效性,并重点关注为患者和组织结果制定可靠的衡量标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interprofessional interventions that impact collaboration and quality of care across inpatient trauma care continuum: A scoping review

Introduction

Despite the recognized importance of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in trauma care, healthcare professionals often work in silos. Interprofessional (IP) interventions are crucial for optimizing IPC and delivering high-quality care across clinical contexts, yet their effectiveness throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum is not well understood. Thus, this review aimed to examine the literature on the effectiveness of IP interventions on collaboration processes and related outcomes in inpatient trauma care.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. We searched six databases for studies from the last decade on IP interventions in inpatient trauma care. Two independent reviewers categorized IP interventions (education, practice, organization) and extracted their impact on IPC processes and related outcomes (team performance, patient, organization).

Results

Of the 17,397 studies screened, 148 met the inclusion criteria. Most were cohort designs (72%), conducted in level I trauma centers (57%) and emergency departments (51%), and involved surgeons (56%) and nurses (53%). Studies focused on IP organization interventions (51%), such as clinical pathways; IP practice interventions (35%), such as trauma team activation protocols; and IP education interventions (14%) including multi-method education. IP practice interventions most effectively improved team performance results, while IP education interventions primarily improved IPC processes. Positive patient outcomes were limited, with few studies examining organizational effects.

Conclusions

Significant advancements are still required in IP interventions and trauma care research. Future studies should rigorously explore the effectiveness of interventions throughout the inpatient trauma care continuum and focus on developing robust measures for patient and organizational outcomes.

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
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
×
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