呼吸治疗领导者对呼吸护理服务价值的看法。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Andrew G Miller, Katlyn L Burr, John S Emberger, Carl R Hinkson, Cheryl A Hoerr, Jerin Juby, Karsten J Roberts, Brian J Smith, Shawna L Strickland, Kyle J Rehder
{"title":"呼吸治疗领导者对呼吸护理服务价值的看法。","authors":"Andrew G Miller, Katlyn L Burr, John S Emberger, Carl R Hinkson, Cheryl A Hoerr, Jerin Juby, Karsten J Roberts, Brian J Smith, Shawna L Strickland, Kyle J Rehder","doi":"10.4187/respcare.12144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Respiratory care departments are experiencing an increased need to demonstrate value in the care they deliver. Value efficiency is a concept that incorporates the value of individual treatments into the normal operations of a department. The purpose of this study was to describe respiratory care leaders' attitudes about the value of services provided by respiratory care departments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic survey was distributed via social media, professional networks, and a manager work group. The survey was targeted to directors, managers, and supervisors of respiratory care departments. We asked questions related to value, services, and barriers to implementation of value efficiency. Data analysis was descriptive.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received 116 responses; 86% were from managers or directors. The 5 most valuable services delivered were invasive mechanical ventilation (82%), noninvasive ventilation or CPAP (71%), protocol-driven care (47%), code team (44%), and rapid response team (41%). The 5 least valuable services delivered by respiratory care departments were electrocardiograms (63%), stress testing (44%), lung expansion therapies (41%), sleep studies staffed by the respiratory care department (36%), and smoking cessation education (36%). The primary barrier to value efficiency was physician prescribing practices (68%). There was general agreement that physicians support respiratory therapy protocols (71%), value should be considered when evaluating respiratory care services (95%), and directing resources to more valuable services if possible (73%). Respondents did not agree that hospital administrators understand respiratory therapy workflow and full-time equivalent needs (35%) nor that hospital administrators would be supportive if we reduced services (18%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a small sample of respiratory therapy leaders, there was limited consensus on what respiratory care services are the most and least valuable. Lack of consensus on high- and low-value services and physician prescribing practice were the primary barriers to value efficiency. Nearly all respondents felt value should be considered when evaluating respiratory care services.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Respiratory Therapy Leaders' Perceptions of Value of Respiratory Care Services.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew G Miller, Katlyn L Burr, John S Emberger, Carl R Hinkson, Cheryl A Hoerr, Jerin Juby, Karsten J Roberts, Brian J Smith, Shawna L Strickland, Kyle J Rehder\",\"doi\":\"10.4187/respcare.12144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Respiratory care departments are experiencing an increased need to demonstrate value in the care they deliver. Value efficiency is a concept that incorporates the value of individual treatments into the normal operations of a department. The purpose of this study was to describe respiratory care leaders' attitudes about the value of services provided by respiratory care departments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic survey was distributed via social media, professional networks, and a manager work group. The survey was targeted to directors, managers, and supervisors of respiratory care departments. We asked questions related to value, services, and barriers to implementation of value efficiency. Data analysis was descriptive.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We received 116 responses; 86% were from managers or directors. The 5 most valuable services delivered were invasive mechanical ventilation (82%), noninvasive ventilation or CPAP (71%), protocol-driven care (47%), code team (44%), and rapid response team (41%). The 5 least valuable services delivered by respiratory care departments were electrocardiograms (63%), stress testing (44%), lung expansion therapies (41%), sleep studies staffed by the respiratory care department (36%), and smoking cessation education (36%). The primary barrier to value efficiency was physician prescribing practices (68%). There was general agreement that physicians support respiratory therapy protocols (71%), value should be considered when evaluating respiratory care services (95%), and directing resources to more valuable services if possible (73%). Respondents did not agree that hospital administrators understand respiratory therapy workflow and full-time equivalent needs (35%) nor that hospital administrators would be supportive if we reduced services (18%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a small sample of respiratory therapy leaders, there was limited consensus on what respiratory care services are the most and least valuable. Lack of consensus on high- and low-value services and physician prescribing practice were the primary barriers to value efficiency. Nearly all respondents felt value should be considered when evaluating respiratory care services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12144\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12144","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:呼吸护理部门越来越需要在其提供的护理服务中体现价值。价值效率是一个将单项治疗的价值纳入科室正常运营的概念。本研究旨在描述呼吸科领导者对呼吸科所提供服务价值的态度:方法:通过社交媒体、专业网络和经理工作小组分发电子调查问卷。调查对象为呼吸护理部的主任、经理和主管。我们提出了与价值、服务和实施价值效率的障碍相关的问题。数据分析为描述性分析:我们共收到 116 份回复,其中 86% 来自经理或主任。最有价值的 5 项服务是有创机械通气(82%)、无创通气或 CPAP(71%)、协议驱动护理(47%)、代码团队(44%)和快速反应团队(41%)。由呼吸科提供的价值最低的 5 项服务是心电图(63%)、压力测试(44%)、肺扩张疗法(41%)、由呼吸科人员进行的睡眠研究(36%)和戒烟教育(36%)。影响价值效率的主要障碍是医生的处方做法(68%)。受访者普遍认为,医生支持呼吸治疗方案(71%),评估呼吸护理服务时应考虑价值(95%),并尽可能将资源用于更有价值的服务(73%)。受访者不同意医院管理者了解呼吸治疗工作流程和全职等同需求(35%),也不同意如果我们减少服务,医院管理者会给予支持(18%):结论:在呼吸治疗领导者的小样本中,对于哪些呼吸治疗服务最有价值和最无价值的共识有限。对高价值和低价值服务缺乏共识以及医生开处方的做法是提高价值效率的主要障碍。几乎所有受访者都认为在评估呼吸治疗服务时应考虑价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Respiratory Therapy Leaders' Perceptions of Value of Respiratory Care Services.

Background: Respiratory care departments are experiencing an increased need to demonstrate value in the care they deliver. Value efficiency is a concept that incorporates the value of individual treatments into the normal operations of a department. The purpose of this study was to describe respiratory care leaders' attitudes about the value of services provided by respiratory care departments.

Methods: An electronic survey was distributed via social media, professional networks, and a manager work group. The survey was targeted to directors, managers, and supervisors of respiratory care departments. We asked questions related to value, services, and barriers to implementation of value efficiency. Data analysis was descriptive.

Results: We received 116 responses; 86% were from managers or directors. The 5 most valuable services delivered were invasive mechanical ventilation (82%), noninvasive ventilation or CPAP (71%), protocol-driven care (47%), code team (44%), and rapid response team (41%). The 5 least valuable services delivered by respiratory care departments were electrocardiograms (63%), stress testing (44%), lung expansion therapies (41%), sleep studies staffed by the respiratory care department (36%), and smoking cessation education (36%). The primary barrier to value efficiency was physician prescribing practices (68%). There was general agreement that physicians support respiratory therapy protocols (71%), value should be considered when evaluating respiratory care services (95%), and directing resources to more valuable services if possible (73%). Respondents did not agree that hospital administrators understand respiratory therapy workflow and full-time equivalent needs (35%) nor that hospital administrators would be supportive if we reduced services (18%).

Conclusions: In a small sample of respiratory therapy leaders, there was limited consensus on what respiratory care services are the most and least valuable. Lack of consensus on high- and low-value services and physician prescribing practice were the primary barriers to value efficiency. Nearly all respondents felt value should be considered when evaluating respiratory care services.

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
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
×
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