了解门诊姑息关怀服务混合使用虚拟和面对面咨询的益处和局限性;一项混合方法研究。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Caradoc Morris, David Waterman, Lesley Anne Henson
{"title":"了解门诊姑息关怀服务混合使用虚拟和面对面咨询的益处和局限性;一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Caradoc Morris, David Waterman, Lesley Anne Henson","doi":"10.1186/s12904-024-01578-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic led to a rapid increase in the use of virtual consultations across healthcare. Post-pandemic, this use is expected to continue alongside the resumption of traditional face-to-face clinics. At present, research exploring when to use different consultation formats for palliative care patients is limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To understand the benefits and limitations of a blended approach to outpatient palliative care services, to provide recommendations for future care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study. Component 1: an online survey of UK palliative care physicians. Component 2: a qualitative interview study exploring patients' and caregivers' experiences of different consultation formats. Findings from both components were integrated, and recommendations for clinical practice identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received 48 survey responses and conducted 8 qualitative interviews. Survey respondents reported that face-to-face consultations were appropriate/necessary for physical examinations (n = 48) and first consultations (n = 39). Video consultations were considered appropriate for monitoring stable symptoms (n = 37), and at the patient's request (n = 42). Patients and caregivers felt face-to-face consultations aided communication. A blended approach increased flexibility and reduced travel burden.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A blended outpatient palliative care service was viewed positively by physicians, patients and caregivers. We identified 13 clinical practice recommendations for the use of different consultation formats.</p>","PeriodicalId":48945,"journal":{"name":"BMC Palliative Care","volume":"23 1","pages":"260"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552375/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the benefits and limitations of mixing virtual and face-to-face consultations to outpatient palliative care services; a mixed-methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Caradoc Morris, David Waterman, Lesley Anne Henson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12904-024-01578-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic led to a rapid increase in the use of virtual consultations across healthcare. Post-pandemic, this use is expected to continue alongside the resumption of traditional face-to-face clinics. At present, research exploring when to use different consultation formats for palliative care patients is limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To understand the benefits and limitations of a blended approach to outpatient palliative care services, to provide recommendations for future care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study. Component 1: an online survey of UK palliative care physicians. Component 2: a qualitative interview study exploring patients' and caregivers' experiences of different consultation formats. Findings from both components were integrated, and recommendations for clinical practice identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received 48 survey responses and conducted 8 qualitative interviews. Survey respondents reported that face-to-face consultations were appropriate/necessary for physical examinations (n = 48) and first consultations (n = 39). Video consultations were considered appropriate for monitoring stable symptoms (n = 37), and at the patient's request (n = 42). Patients and caregivers felt face-to-face consultations aided communication. A blended approach increased flexibility and reduced travel burden.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A blended outpatient palliative care service was viewed positively by physicians, patients and caregivers. We identified 13 clinical practice recommendations for the use of different consultation formats.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Palliative Care\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"260\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552375/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01578-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01578-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Covid-19 大流行导致虚拟会诊在医疗保健领域的使用迅速增加。疫情过后,随着传统面对面诊疗的恢复,预计虚拟会诊将继续使用。目的:了解门诊姑息关怀服务混合方式的益处和局限性,为未来的关怀提供建议:方法:混合方法研究。第一部分:对英国姑息关怀医生进行在线调查。第二部分:定性访谈研究,探讨患者和照护者对不同咨询形式的体验。综合两个部分的研究结果,确定临床实践建议:我们共收到 48 份调查问卷,并进行了 8 次定性访谈。调查对象称,面对面会诊对于体检(48 人)和首次会诊(39 人)是合适/必要的。视频会诊被认为适用于监测稳定的症状(37 人),以及应患者的要求(42 人)。患者和护理人员认为面对面会诊有助于沟通。混合式方法增加了灵活性,减轻了旅行负担:综合门诊姑息关怀服务得到了医生、患者和照护者的积极评价。我们为使用不同的会诊形式确定了 13 项临床实践建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding the benefits and limitations of mixing virtual and face-to-face consultations to outpatient palliative care services; a mixed-methods study.

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic led to a rapid increase in the use of virtual consultations across healthcare. Post-pandemic, this use is expected to continue alongside the resumption of traditional face-to-face clinics. At present, research exploring when to use different consultation formats for palliative care patients is limited.

Aim: To understand the benefits and limitations of a blended approach to outpatient palliative care services, to provide recommendations for future care.

Methods: A mixed-methods study. Component 1: an online survey of UK palliative care physicians. Component 2: a qualitative interview study exploring patients' and caregivers' experiences of different consultation formats. Findings from both components were integrated, and recommendations for clinical practice identified.

Results: We received 48 survey responses and conducted 8 qualitative interviews. Survey respondents reported that face-to-face consultations were appropriate/necessary for physical examinations (n = 48) and first consultations (n = 39). Video consultations were considered appropriate for monitoring stable symptoms (n = 37), and at the patient's request (n = 42). Patients and caregivers felt face-to-face consultations aided communication. A blended approach increased flexibility and reduced travel burden.

Conclusions: A blended outpatient palliative care service was viewed positively by physicians, patients and caregivers. We identified 13 clinical practice recommendations for the use of different consultation formats.

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
BMC Palliative Care
BMC Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
201
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Palliative Care is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the clinical, scientific, ethical and policy issues, local and international, regarding all aspects of hospice and palliative care for the dying and for those with profound suffering related to chronic illness.
×
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