成人重症监护中的无效治疗护理干预:描述性研究。

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
João Vítor Vieira, Henrique Oliveira, Sérgio Deodato, Felismina Mendes
{"title":"成人重症监护中的无效治疗护理干预:描述性研究。","authors":"João Vítor Vieira, Henrique Oliveira, Sérgio Deodato, Felismina Mendes","doi":"10.1177/09697330241277988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Despite the progress made in recent decades on the phenomenon of futility in adult intensive care, recognizing it during clinical care practice remains a complex and sensitive process, during which questions are often raised for which concrete answers are difficult to find. <b>Aims:</b> To analyze the frequency with which futile nursing interventions are implemented in critically ill patients admitted to adult intensive care in specific situations and how often futile autonomous and interdependent nursing interventions are implemented in the same population, as perceived by adult intensive care nurses. <b>Research design:</b> Cross-sectional, quantitative, and descriptive study, which employed a questionnaire constructed specifically for this research to assess the perception of therapeutic futility in nursing in adult intensive care. Following an evaluation of the psychometric properties, the questionnaire was made available in an electronic format on the EUSurvey platform between August and October 2024. The data was analyzed between November 2023 and March 2024 using the statistical software packages SPSS and R. <b>Participants and research context:</b> A simple random sample of nurses working in level II and level III intensive care units in Portugal. <b>Ethical considerations:</b> Research ethical approvals were obtained, and the participants provided informed consent. <b>Findings/results:</b> Four hundred and fourteen valid questionnaires were obtained. The results allow the identification of thirty-three statistically significant associations, the inference of intervals for the mean and median for the perception of futility of nursing interventions with a 95% confidence interval, and enable the hierarchization of nursing interventions implemented in critically ill patients admitted to adult intensive care units according to the nurses' perception of their futility. <b>Conclusion:</b> There is a balance in nurses' perception of the futility of their interventions in the specific situations analyzed. There is statistically significant evidence that interdependent nursing interventions are, in general, more frequently perceived as futile when compared to autonomous nursing interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"9697330241277988"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Futile therapeutic nursing interventions in adult intensive care: A descriptive study.\",\"authors\":\"João Vítor Vieira, Henrique Oliveira, Sérgio Deodato, Felismina Mendes\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09697330241277988\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Despite the progress made in recent decades on the phenomenon of futility in adult intensive care, recognizing it during clinical care practice remains a complex and sensitive process, during which questions are often raised for which concrete answers are difficult to find. <b>Aims:</b> To analyze the frequency with which futile nursing interventions are implemented in critically ill patients admitted to adult intensive care in specific situations and how often futile autonomous and interdependent nursing interventions are implemented in the same population, as perceived by adult intensive care nurses. <b>Research design:</b> Cross-sectional, quantitative, and descriptive study, which employed a questionnaire constructed specifically for this research to assess the perception of therapeutic futility in nursing in adult intensive care. Following an evaluation of the psychometric properties, the questionnaire was made available in an electronic format on the EUSurvey platform between August and October 2024. The data was analyzed between November 2023 and March 2024 using the statistical software packages SPSS and R. <b>Participants and research context:</b> A simple random sample of nurses working in level II and level III intensive care units in Portugal. <b>Ethical considerations:</b> Research ethical approvals were obtained, and the participants provided informed consent. <b>Findings/results:</b> Four hundred and fourteen valid questionnaires were obtained. The results allow the identification of thirty-three statistically significant associations, the inference of intervals for the mean and median for the perception of futility of nursing interventions with a 95% confidence interval, and enable the hierarchization of nursing interventions implemented in critically ill patients admitted to adult intensive care units according to the nurses' perception of their futility. <b>Conclusion:</b> There is a balance in nurses' perception of the futility of their interventions in the specific situations analyzed. There is statistically significant evidence that interdependent nursing interventions are, in general, more frequently perceived as futile when compared to autonomous nursing interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9697330241277988\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330241277988\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330241277988","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管近几十年来在成人重症监护中对无效现象的研究取得了进展,但在临床护理实践中认识到这一现象仍然是一个复杂而敏感的过程,在这一过程中经常会提出一些问题,而这些问题很难找到具体的答案。研究目的:根据成人重症监护护士的看法,分析在特定情况下对成人重症监护室收治的重症患者实施无效护理干预的频率,以及在同一人群中实施无效自主和相互依赖护理干预的频率。研究设计:横断面、定量和描述性研究,采用专门为本研究设计的调查问卷来评估成人重症监护护理中对治疗无效的认知。在对问卷的心理测量特性进行评估后,于 2024 年 8 月至 10 月期间在 EUSurvey 平台上发布了电子版问卷。在 2023 年 11 月至 2024 年 3 月期间,使用 SPSS 和 R 统计软件包对数据进行了分析:葡萄牙二级和三级重症监护病房护士的简单随机抽样。伦理考虑因素:已获得研究伦理批准,参与者提供了知情同意书。调查结果/成果:共获得 4414 份有效问卷。研究结果确定了 33 项具有统计学意义的关联,推断出了护理干预措施无效性认知的平均值和中位数的 95% 置信区间,并根据护士对护理干预措施无效性的认知,对成人重症监护病房收治的重症患者实施的护理干预措施进行了分级。结论在所分析的特定情况下,护士对其干预措施无用性的认知存在平衡。有统计学意义的证据表明,与自主性护理干预相比,相互依赖的护理干预一般更常被认为是徒劳无益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Futile therapeutic nursing interventions in adult intensive care: A descriptive study.

Background: Despite the progress made in recent decades on the phenomenon of futility in adult intensive care, recognizing it during clinical care practice remains a complex and sensitive process, during which questions are often raised for which concrete answers are difficult to find. Aims: To analyze the frequency with which futile nursing interventions are implemented in critically ill patients admitted to adult intensive care in specific situations and how often futile autonomous and interdependent nursing interventions are implemented in the same population, as perceived by adult intensive care nurses. Research design: Cross-sectional, quantitative, and descriptive study, which employed a questionnaire constructed specifically for this research to assess the perception of therapeutic futility in nursing in adult intensive care. Following an evaluation of the psychometric properties, the questionnaire was made available in an electronic format on the EUSurvey platform between August and October 2024. The data was analyzed between November 2023 and March 2024 using the statistical software packages SPSS and R. Participants and research context: A simple random sample of nurses working in level II and level III intensive care units in Portugal. Ethical considerations: Research ethical approvals were obtained, and the participants provided informed consent. Findings/results: Four hundred and fourteen valid questionnaires were obtained. The results allow the identification of thirty-three statistically significant associations, the inference of intervals for the mean and median for the perception of futility of nursing interventions with a 95% confidence interval, and enable the hierarchization of nursing interventions implemented in critically ill patients admitted to adult intensive care units according to the nurses' perception of their futility. Conclusion: There is a balance in nurses' perception of the futility of their interventions in the specific situations analyzed. There is statistically significant evidence that interdependent nursing interventions are, in general, more frequently perceived as futile when compared to autonomous nursing interventions.

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
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
×
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