外科查房核心参与者的经验和需求:一项定性探索性研究。

Q2 Medicine
Helle Poulsen, Jane Clemensen, Jette Ammentorp, Poul-Erik Kofoed, Maiken Wolderslund
{"title":"外科查房核心参与者的经验和需求:一项定性探索性研究。","authors":"Helle Poulsen, Jane Clemensen, Jette Ammentorp, Poul-Erik Kofoed, Maiken Wolderslund","doi":"10.2196/69578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical ward rounds (SWRs) are typically led by doctors, with limited involvement from key participants, including patients, family members, and bedside nurses. Despite the potential benefits of a more collaborative and person-centered approach, efforts to engage these stakeholders remain rare.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This qualitative exploratory study examined the experiences and needs of doctors, nurses, patients, and their relatives during SWRs as part of a Participatory Design process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected through ethnographic field studies, focus groups with the healthcare providers, patients and relatives, and dyadic interviews conducted as part of home visits to patients and their partners after discharge. Field notes and interview data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lack of organization, traditional roles, and cultural norms compromised the quality, efficiency, and user experience of SWRs in multiple ways. SWRs were routine-driven, treatment-focused, and received lower priority than surgical tasks. Unpredictability resulted in unprepared participants and limited access for nurses, patients, and relatives to partake.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study identified a gap between the organizational and cultural frameworks governing the SWRs and the experiences and needs of key participants. Digital technologies were perceived as a potential solution to address some of these challenges.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experiences and Needs of Core Participants in Surgical Ward Rounds: A Qualitative Exploratory Study.\",\"authors\":\"Helle Poulsen, Jane Clemensen, Jette Ammentorp, Poul-Erik Kofoed, Maiken Wolderslund\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/69578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical ward rounds (SWRs) are typically led by doctors, with limited involvement from key participants, including patients, family members, and bedside nurses. Despite the potential benefits of a more collaborative and person-centered approach, efforts to engage these stakeholders remain rare.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This qualitative exploratory study examined the experiences and needs of doctors, nurses, patients, and their relatives during SWRs as part of a Participatory Design process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected through ethnographic field studies, focus groups with the healthcare providers, patients and relatives, and dyadic interviews conducted as part of home visits to patients and their partners after discharge. Field notes and interview data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lack of organization, traditional roles, and cultural norms compromised the quality, efficiency, and user experience of SWRs in multiple ways. SWRs were routine-driven, treatment-focused, and received lower priority than surgical tasks. Unpredictability resulted in unprepared participants and limited access for nurses, patients, and relatives to partake.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study identified a gap between the organizational and cultural frameworks governing the SWRs and the experiences and needs of key participants. Digital technologies were perceived as a potential solution to address some of these challenges.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Participatory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/69578\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/69578","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:外科查房(SWRs)通常由医生领导,关键参与者(包括患者、家属和床边护士)的参与有限。尽管更加协作和以人为本的方法可能带来好处,但吸引这些利益攸关方的努力仍然很少。目的:本定性探索性研究考察了医生、护士、患者及其亲属在swr期间的经历和需求,作为参与式设计过程的一部分。方法:通过民族志实地调查、与医疗服务提供者、患者和亲属的焦点小组以及出院后对患者及其伴侣进行家访的二元访谈来收集数据。实地记录和访谈数据采用系统文本浓缩法进行分析。结果:缺乏组织、传统角色和文化规范在多个方面损害了swr的质量、效率和用户体验。swr是常规驱动的,以治疗为中心,优先级低于手术任务。不可预测性导致参与者毫无准备,护士、患者和亲属参与的机会有限。结论:该研究确定了管理swr的组织和文化框架与关键参与者的经验和需求之间的差距。数字技术被认为是解决其中一些挑战的潜在解决方案。临床试验:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Experiences and Needs of Core Participants in Surgical Ward Rounds: A Qualitative Exploratory Study.

Background: Surgical ward rounds (SWRs) are typically led by doctors, with limited involvement from key participants, including patients, family members, and bedside nurses. Despite the potential benefits of a more collaborative and person-centered approach, efforts to engage these stakeholders remain rare.

Objective: This qualitative exploratory study examined the experiences and needs of doctors, nurses, patients, and their relatives during SWRs as part of a Participatory Design process.

Methods: Data were collected through ethnographic field studies, focus groups with the healthcare providers, patients and relatives, and dyadic interviews conducted as part of home visits to patients and their partners after discharge. Field notes and interview data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.

Results: Lack of organization, traditional roles, and cultural norms compromised the quality, efficiency, and user experience of SWRs in multiple ways. SWRs were routine-driven, treatment-focused, and received lower priority than surgical tasks. Unpredictability resulted in unprepared participants and limited access for nurses, patients, and relatives to partake.

Conclusions: The study identified a gap between the organizational and cultural frameworks governing the SWRs and the experiences and needs of key participants. Digital technologies were perceived as a potential solution to address some of these challenges.

Clinicaltrial:

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
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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