以员工为导向改善医院临终阶段护理的形成性评价。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sophie Meesters, Sukhvir Kaur, Viola Milke, Christin Herrmann, Aneta Schieferdecker, Nikolas Oubaid, Karin Oechsle, Holger Schulz, Holger Pfaff, Raymond Voltz, Kerstin Kremeike
{"title":"以员工为导向改善医院临终阶段护理的形成性评价。","authors":"Sophie Meesters, Sukhvir Kaur, Viola Milke, Christin Herrmann, Aneta Schieferdecker, Nikolas Oubaid, Karin Oechsle, Holger Schulz, Holger Pfaff, Raymond Voltz, Kerstin Kremeike","doi":"10.1017/S1478951525100400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The hospital setting is often perceived as slow to change. While employee-driven approaches offer a promising alternative to traditional top-down methods, guidance is limited. This study provides a description and formative evaluation of an employee-driven working group (WG) approach to tailor ward-specific measures to improve care in the dying phase. The aim is to evaluate the WG process and offer practical insights for transferability to other hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Formative mixed-methods evaluation of a WG process to tailor ward-specific evidence-informed measures on 10 wards outside specialized palliative care at 2 German medical centers. To analyze factors relevant for the WG process, the <i>Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0</i> was applied. Data included baseline evaluation (medical record analysis, staff survey and focus groups, informal caregiver interviews), WG protocols, and an online survey with WG participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multiprofessional WGs were established on all hospital wards, with an average of 7 meetings per ward within 1 year and 4 participants per meeting. Adapting the process to participants' wishes and needs were crucial, particularly regarding the desired degree of external input. We identified 4 barriers (e.g. declining participation, institutional limits) and 7 facilitators (e.g. involvement of staff in leading positions, multiprofessional composition). The WGs tailored 34 measures, e.g. team meetings to improve communication within the team. Participants' views were generally positive: 91% felt able to share their thoughts, 66% were satisfied with the outcome, and 77% would participate again.</p><p><strong>Significance of results: </strong>The employee-driven approach was feasible and useful for tailoring ward-specific measures. However, integrating top-down elements proved to be beneficial. The identified barriers and facilitators provide insights for transferring an employee-driven approach to other hospitals to improve care in the dying phase outside specialized palliative care settings.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025405).</p>","PeriodicalId":47898,"journal":{"name":"Palliative & Supportive Care","volume":"23 ","pages":"e135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formative evaluation of an employee-driven approach to improve care in the dying phase in hospitals.\",\"authors\":\"Sophie Meesters, Sukhvir Kaur, Viola Milke, Christin Herrmann, Aneta Schieferdecker, Nikolas Oubaid, Karin Oechsle, Holger Schulz, Holger Pfaff, Raymond Voltz, Kerstin Kremeike\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1478951525100400\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The hospital setting is often perceived as slow to change. While employee-driven approaches offer a promising alternative to traditional top-down methods, guidance is limited. This study provides a description and formative evaluation of an employee-driven working group (WG) approach to tailor ward-specific measures to improve care in the dying phase. The aim is to evaluate the WG process and offer practical insights for transferability to other hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Formative mixed-methods evaluation of a WG process to tailor ward-specific evidence-informed measures on 10 wards outside specialized palliative care at 2 German medical centers. To analyze factors relevant for the WG process, the <i>Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0</i> was applied. Data included baseline evaluation (medical record analysis, staff survey and focus groups, informal caregiver interviews), WG protocols, and an online survey with WG participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multiprofessional WGs were established on all hospital wards, with an average of 7 meetings per ward within 1 year and 4 participants per meeting. Adapting the process to participants' wishes and needs were crucial, particularly regarding the desired degree of external input. We identified 4 barriers (e.g. declining participation, institutional limits) and 7 facilitators (e.g. involvement of staff in leading positions, multiprofessional composition). The WGs tailored 34 measures, e.g. team meetings to improve communication within the team. Participants' views were generally positive: 91% felt able to share their thoughts, 66% were satisfied with the outcome, and 77% would participate again.</p><p><strong>Significance of results: </strong>The employee-driven approach was feasible and useful for tailoring ward-specific measures. However, integrating top-down elements proved to be beneficial. The identified barriers and facilitators provide insights for transferring an employee-driven approach to other hospitals to improve care in the dying phase outside specialized palliative care settings.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025405).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Palliative & Supportive Care\",\"volume\":\"23 \",\"pages\":\"e135\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Palliative & Supportive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951525100400\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative & Supportive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951525100400","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:医院环境通常被认为变化缓慢。虽然员工驱动的方法为传统的自上而下的方法提供了一个有希望的替代方案,但指导是有限的。本研究提供了一个员工驱动的工作组(WG)方法的描述和形成性评估,以定制病房具体措施,以改善临终阶段的护理。目的是评估工作组流程,并为可转移到其他医院提供实际见解。方法:形成性混合方法评估WG过程,以定制针对特定病房的循证措施,在2个德国医疗中心的专科姑息治疗以外的10个病房。为了分析与工作组过程相关的因素,应用了实施研究统一框架2.0。数据包括基线评估(医疗记录分析、工作人员调查和焦点小组、非正式护理人员访谈)、工作组协议以及对工作组参与者的在线调查。结果:各病区均建立了多专业工作小组,1年内平均每个病区召开7次会议,每次会议4人。使这一进程适应参与者的愿望和需要是至关重要的,特别是在期望的外部投入程度方面。我们确定了4个障碍(如参与度下降、制度限制)和7个促进因素(如员工参与领导职位、多专业组成)。工作组制定了34项措施,例如团队会议,以改善团队内部的沟通。参与者的观点普遍是积极的:91%的人觉得可以分享他们的想法,66%的人对结果感到满意,77%的人会再次参加。结果的意义:员工驱动的方法是可行的和有用的定制病房具体措施。然而,集成自顶向下的元素被证明是有益的。确定的障碍和促进因素为将员工驱动的方法转移到其他医院以改善专业姑息治疗设置之外的临终阶段护理提供了见解。临床试验注册:该研究已在德国临床试验注册(DRKS00025405)注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Formative evaluation of an employee-driven approach to improve care in the dying phase in hospitals.

Objectives: The hospital setting is often perceived as slow to change. While employee-driven approaches offer a promising alternative to traditional top-down methods, guidance is limited. This study provides a description and formative evaluation of an employee-driven working group (WG) approach to tailor ward-specific measures to improve care in the dying phase. The aim is to evaluate the WG process and offer practical insights for transferability to other hospitals.

Methods: Formative mixed-methods evaluation of a WG process to tailor ward-specific evidence-informed measures on 10 wards outside specialized palliative care at 2 German medical centers. To analyze factors relevant for the WG process, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2.0 was applied. Data included baseline evaluation (medical record analysis, staff survey and focus groups, informal caregiver interviews), WG protocols, and an online survey with WG participants.

Results: Multiprofessional WGs were established on all hospital wards, with an average of 7 meetings per ward within 1 year and 4 participants per meeting. Adapting the process to participants' wishes and needs were crucial, particularly regarding the desired degree of external input. We identified 4 barriers (e.g. declining participation, institutional limits) and 7 facilitators (e.g. involvement of staff in leading positions, multiprofessional composition). The WGs tailored 34 measures, e.g. team meetings to improve communication within the team. Participants' views were generally positive: 91% felt able to share their thoughts, 66% were satisfied with the outcome, and 77% would participate again.

Significance of results: The employee-driven approach was feasible and useful for tailoring ward-specific measures. However, integrating top-down elements proved to be beneficial. The identified barriers and facilitators provide insights for transferring an employee-driven approach to other hospitals to improve care in the dying phase outside specialized palliative care settings.

Clinical trial registration: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025405).

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
Palliative & Supportive Care
Palliative & Supportive Care HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
280
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信