从分诊到离开:老年人的ED之旅。混合方法研究。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Melinda Williamson, Kristie J Harper, Sarah Bernard, Courtenay Harris
{"title":"从分诊到离开:老年人的ED之旅。混合方法研究。","authors":"Melinda Williamson, Kristie J Harper, Sarah Bernard, Courtenay Harris","doi":"10.1016/j.auec.2025.03.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rising Emergency Department (ED) demand strains resources to assess and manage frail older adults. Allied health supports comprehensive care, disposition planning and patient safety in the ED but often intervenes late. This study investigated factors affecting allied health referrals and co-designed an early allied health frailty service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was used. Patient journey mapping of low acuity older ED patients was followed by stakeholder focus groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From triage, 20 older ED patients waited a mean of 110 minutes (SD 83 minutes) for doctor assessment, 123 minutes (SD 116 minutes) for an ED bed and 355 minutes (SD 297 minutes) for allied health assessment with a mean ED length of stay (LOS) of 685 minutes (SD 444 minutes). Qualitative analysis of focus group discussions identified perceived benefits of an early allied health service including shorter LOS, earlier disposition planning, increased staff confidence and streamlined decision making. Perceived barriers were lack of space, competing assessments with doctors and incomplete investigations. Perceived solutions were refining the inclusion criteria and staff education.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Allied health assessment occurred six hours post presentation, outside national targets. Opportunities and barriers identified supported the development of an earlier allied health frailty service.</p>","PeriodicalId":55979,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From triage to departure: Older adults' ED journey. A mixed methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Melinda Williamson, Kristie J Harper, Sarah Bernard, Courtenay Harris\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.auec.2025.03.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rising Emergency Department (ED) demand strains resources to assess and manage frail older adults. Allied health supports comprehensive care, disposition planning and patient safety in the ED but often intervenes late. This study investigated factors affecting allied health referrals and co-designed an early allied health frailty service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was used. Patient journey mapping of low acuity older ED patients was followed by stakeholder focus groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From triage, 20 older ED patients waited a mean of 110 minutes (SD 83 minutes) for doctor assessment, 123 minutes (SD 116 minutes) for an ED bed and 355 minutes (SD 297 minutes) for allied health assessment with a mean ED length of stay (LOS) of 685 minutes (SD 444 minutes). Qualitative analysis of focus group discussions identified perceived benefits of an early allied health service including shorter LOS, earlier disposition planning, increased staff confidence and streamlined decision making. Perceived barriers were lack of space, competing assessments with doctors and incomplete investigations. Perceived solutions were refining the inclusion criteria and staff education.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Allied health assessment occurred six hours post presentation, outside national targets. Opportunities and barriers identified supported the development of an earlier allied health frailty service.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Emergency Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Emergency Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2025.03.005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2025.03.005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急诊科(ED)日益增长的需求使评估和管理体弱老年人的资源紧张。联合健康支持综合护理,处置计划和病人安全在急诊科,但往往干预晚。本研究调查了影响联合健康转诊的因素,并共同设计了早期联合健康虚弱服务。方法:采用解释性顺序混合方法。通过利益相关者焦点小组对低敏锐度老年急诊科患者进行随访。结果:从分诊开始,20例老年急诊科患者等待医生评估的平均时间为110 分钟(SD 83 分钟),等待急诊科床位的平均时间为123 分钟(SD 116 分钟),等待联合健康评估的平均时间为355 分钟(SD 297 分钟),平均急诊科住院时间(LOS)为685 分钟(SD 444 分钟)。焦点小组讨论的定性分析确定了早期联合保健服务的感知好处,包括缩短工作期限、更早规划处置、提高工作人员信心和简化决策。人们认为的障碍是缺乏空间、与医生相互竞争的评估以及不完整的调查。人们认为的解决办法是改进纳入标准和工作人员教育。结论:联合健康评估发生在报告后6小时,超出国家目标。确定的机会和障碍支持了早期联合脆弱保健服务的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From triage to departure: Older adults' ED journey. A mixed methods study.

Background: Rising Emergency Department (ED) demand strains resources to assess and manage frail older adults. Allied health supports comprehensive care, disposition planning and patient safety in the ED but often intervenes late. This study investigated factors affecting allied health referrals and co-designed an early allied health frailty service.

Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach was used. Patient journey mapping of low acuity older ED patients was followed by stakeholder focus groups.

Results: From triage, 20 older ED patients waited a mean of 110 minutes (SD 83 minutes) for doctor assessment, 123 minutes (SD 116 minutes) for an ED bed and 355 minutes (SD 297 minutes) for allied health assessment with a mean ED length of stay (LOS) of 685 minutes (SD 444 minutes). Qualitative analysis of focus group discussions identified perceived benefits of an early allied health service including shorter LOS, earlier disposition planning, increased staff confidence and streamlined decision making. Perceived barriers were lack of space, competing assessments with doctors and incomplete investigations. Perceived solutions were refining the inclusion criteria and staff education.

Conclusion: Allied health assessment occurred six hours post presentation, outside national targets. Opportunities and barriers identified supported the development of an earlier allied health frailty service.

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
Australasian Emergency Care
Australasian Emergency Care Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
82
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Australasian Emergency Care is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to supporting emergency nurses, physicians, paramedics and other professionals in advancing the science and practice of emergency care, wherever it is delivered. As the official journal of the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA), Australasian Emergency Care is a conduit for clinical, applied, and theoretical research and knowledge that advances the science and practice of emergency care in original, innovative and challenging ways. The journal serves as a leading voice for the emergency care community, reflecting its inter-professional diversity, and the importance of collaboration and shared decision-making to achieve quality patient outcomes. It is strongly focussed on advancing the patient experience and quality of care across the emergency care continuum, spanning the pre-hospital, hospital and post-hospital settings within Australasia and beyond.
×
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