评估工具解决老年人可避免的护理转变:系统的文献综述。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
European Geriatric Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1007/s41999-024-01106-7
Rustem Makhmutov, Alicia Calle Egusquiza, Cristina Roqueta Guillen, Eva-Maria Amor Fernandez, Gabriele Meyer, Moriah E Ellen, Steffen Fleischer, Anna Renom Guiteras
{"title":"评估工具解决老年人可避免的护理转变:系统的文献综述。","authors":"Rustem Makhmutov, Alicia Calle Egusquiza, Cristina Roqueta Guillen, Eva-Maria Amor Fernandez, Gabriele Meyer, Moriah E Ellen, Steffen Fleischer, Anna Renom Guiteras","doi":"10.1007/s41999-024-01106-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The phenomenon of avoidable care transitions has received increasing attention over the last decades due to its frequency and associated burden for the patients and the healthcare system. A number of assessment tools to identify avoidable transitions have been designed and implemented. The selection of the most appropriate tool appears to be challenging and time-consuming. This systematic review aimed to identify and comprehensively describe the assessment tools that can support stakeholders´ care transition decisions on older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted as part of the TRANS-SENIOR research network. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. No restrictions regarding publication date and language were applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search in three electronic databases revealed 1266 references and screening for eligibility resulted in 58 articles for inclusion. A total of 48 assessment tools were identified covering different concepts, judgement processes, and transition destinations. We found variation in the comprehensiveness of the tools with regard to dimensions used in the judgement process.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All tools are not comprehensive with respect to the dimensions covered, as they address only one or a few perspectives. Although assessment tools can be useful in clinical practice, it is worth it to bear in mind that they are meant to support decision-making and supplement the care professional´s judgement, instead of replacing it. Our review might guide clinicians and researchers in choosing the right tool for identification of avoidable care transitions, and thus support informed decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":49287,"journal":{"name":"European Geriatric Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1587-1601"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632047/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment tools addressing avoidable care transitions in older adults: a systematic literature review.\",\"authors\":\"Rustem Makhmutov, Alicia Calle Egusquiza, Cristina Roqueta Guillen, Eva-Maria Amor Fernandez, Gabriele Meyer, Moriah E Ellen, Steffen Fleischer, Anna Renom Guiteras\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41999-024-01106-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The phenomenon of avoidable care transitions has received increasing attention over the last decades due to its frequency and associated burden for the patients and the healthcare system. A number of assessment tools to identify avoidable transitions have been designed and implemented. The selection of the most appropriate tool appears to be challenging and time-consuming. This systematic review aimed to identify and comprehensively describe the assessment tools that can support stakeholders´ care transition decisions on older adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted as part of the TRANS-SENIOR research network. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. No restrictions regarding publication date and language were applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search in three electronic databases revealed 1266 references and screening for eligibility resulted in 58 articles for inclusion. A total of 48 assessment tools were identified covering different concepts, judgement processes, and transition destinations. We found variation in the comprehensiveness of the tools with regard to dimensions used in the judgement process.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All tools are not comprehensive with respect to the dimensions covered, as they address only one or a few perspectives. Although assessment tools can be useful in clinical practice, it is worth it to bear in mind that they are meant to support decision-making and supplement the care professional´s judgement, instead of replacing it. Our review might guide clinicians and researchers in choosing the right tool for identification of avoidable care transitions, and thus support informed decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Geriatric Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1587-1601\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11632047/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Geriatric Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-024-01106-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Geriatric Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-024-01106-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在过去的几十年里,由于可避免的护理转变的频率和相关的负担,患者和医疗保健系统受到越来越多的关注。已经设计和实施了一些评估工具来确定可避免的过渡。选择最合适的工具似乎是具有挑战性和耗时的。本系统综述旨在确定并全面描述可支持利益相关者对老年人护理过渡决策的评估工具。方法:本研究作为TRANS-SENIOR研究网络的一部分进行。通过PubMed、CINAHL和CENTRAL在MEDLINE进行系统检索。对出版日期和语言没有任何限制。结果:在3个电子数据库中检索到1266篇参考文献,筛选出58篇纳入。总共确定了48种评估工具,涵盖了不同的概念、判断过程和转换目的地。我们发现,在判断过程中使用的维度方面,工具的全面性存在差异。结论:就所涵盖的维度而言,所有工具都不是全面的,因为它们只处理一个或几个透视图。虽然评估工具在临床实践中是有用的,但值得记住的是,它们是为了支持决策和补充护理专业人员的判断,而不是取代它。我们的综述可以指导临床医生和研究人员选择正确的工具来识别可避免的护理转变,从而支持明智的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment tools addressing avoidable care transitions in older adults: a systematic literature review.

Purpose: The phenomenon of avoidable care transitions has received increasing attention over the last decades due to its frequency and associated burden for the patients and the healthcare system. A number of assessment tools to identify avoidable transitions have been designed and implemented. The selection of the most appropriate tool appears to be challenging and time-consuming. This systematic review aimed to identify and comprehensively describe the assessment tools that can support stakeholders´ care transition decisions on older adults.

Methods: This study was conducted as part of the TRANS-SENIOR research network. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. No restrictions regarding publication date and language were applied.

Results: The search in three electronic databases revealed 1266 references and screening for eligibility resulted in 58 articles for inclusion. A total of 48 assessment tools were identified covering different concepts, judgement processes, and transition destinations. We found variation in the comprehensiveness of the tools with regard to dimensions used in the judgement process.

Conclusion: All tools are not comprehensive with respect to the dimensions covered, as they address only one or a few perspectives. Although assessment tools can be useful in clinical practice, it is worth it to bear in mind that they are meant to support decision-making and supplement the care professional´s judgement, instead of replacing it. Our review might guide clinicians and researchers in choosing the right tool for identification of avoidable care transitions, and thus support informed decision-making.

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
European Geriatric Medicine
European Geriatric Medicine GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Geriatric Medicine is the official journal of the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS). Launched in 2010, this journal aims to publish the highest quality material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of Geriatric Medicine. The EUGMS is interested in the promotion of Geriatric Medicine in any setting (acute or subacute care, rehabilitation, nursing homes, primary care, fall clinics, ambulatory assessment, dementia clinics..), and also in functionality in old age, comprehensive geriatric assessment, geriatric syndromes, geriatric education, old age psychiatry, models of geriatric care in health services, and quality assurance.
×
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