家庭参与临床医生交接时重症监护卫生保健专业人员的经验:一项定性系统回顾。

IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JBI evidence synthesis Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-07 DOI:10.11124/JBIES-24-00154
Pauline Wong, Andree Gamble, Ruofei Chen, Ruth Endacott
{"title":"家庭参与临床医生交接时重症监护卫生保健专业人员的经验:一项定性系统回顾。","authors":"Pauline Wong, Andree Gamble, Ruofei Chen, Ruth Endacott","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to evaluate health care professionals' experiences when families participate in clinician handovers in adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units (ICUs).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Previous studies report the emotional distress families experience when a relative is admitted to intensive care, including an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after discharge. Family involvement in patient care in ICU can improve safety and quality health care outcomes. Furthermore, family participation in clinician handovers may improve satisfaction with care, staff communication, and interpersonal relationships with families. However, health care professionals' attitudes toward family participation in multidisciplinary ward rounds are diverse, and little is known about their perspectives toward family participation in clinician handovers.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Studies were included if they involved health care professionals and any type of family participation during handover, from bedside presence to participation in decision-making. Clinician handovers included multidisciplinary ward rounds or nursing handovers. Settings were adult, pediatric, or neonatal intensive care units in rural or metropolitan regions in any country. Studies in other clinical contexts were excluded. Qualitative studies were included, as well as mixed methods studies if qualitative data could be clearly extracted.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases searched included CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ProQuest Central (including ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), Web of Science, MedNar, and Google Scholar, with limiters being English and the year range 2000 to present. The last search was in October 2024. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts and assessed the full-text articles that met inclusion criteria for methodological quality. Findings were extracted using the JBI data extraction tool and assigned a level of credibility. Meta-aggregation was used to synthesize the findings. Two reviewers discussed any disagreements to reach consensus and consulted a third reviewer when necessary.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies published from 2003-2024 were included for data extraction. Five studies were qualitative and 6 were mixed methods. Six studies were conducted in the United States, 4 in Canada, and 1 in Australia. Three studies were in adult ICUs, 5 in pediatric, 1 in neonatal, and 2 did not specify the ICU type. All studies were on multidisciplinary bedside rounds, while none were conducted on nursing handovers. The findings revealed that health care professionals generally supported family participation in clinician handovers due to benefits such as improved communication between the health care team and families. However, they also identified barriers, including families' emotional responses to bad news and impact on workflow and teaching opportunities during handovers. Planning, leadership, and clear communication were highlighted as crucial for successfully facilitating family participation in rounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While this review found that health care professionals value family participation in multidisciplinary bedside rounds, they experienced challenges. Future research is required to explore family participation in clinician handovers. Significant planning, investment and preparation is required to include families in ICU handovers.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42020223011.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1898-1937"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experiences of health care professionals in intensive care when families participate in clinician handovers: a qualitative systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Pauline Wong, Andree Gamble, Ruofei Chen, Ruth Endacott\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBIES-24-00154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to evaluate health care professionals' experiences when families participate in clinician handovers in adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units (ICUs).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Previous studies report the emotional distress families experience when a relative is admitted to intensive care, including an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after discharge. Family involvement in patient care in ICU can improve safety and quality health care outcomes. Furthermore, family participation in clinician handovers may improve satisfaction with care, staff communication, and interpersonal relationships with families. However, health care professionals' attitudes toward family participation in multidisciplinary ward rounds are diverse, and little is known about their perspectives toward family participation in clinician handovers.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Studies were included if they involved health care professionals and any type of family participation during handover, from bedside presence to participation in decision-making. Clinician handovers included multidisciplinary ward rounds or nursing handovers. Settings were adult, pediatric, or neonatal intensive care units in rural or metropolitan regions in any country. Studies in other clinical contexts were excluded. Qualitative studies were included, as well as mixed methods studies if qualitative data could be clearly extracted.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases searched included CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ProQuest Central (including ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), Web of Science, MedNar, and Google Scholar, with limiters being English and the year range 2000 to present. The last search was in October 2024. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts and assessed the full-text articles that met inclusion criteria for methodological quality. Findings were extracted using the JBI data extraction tool and assigned a level of credibility. Meta-aggregation was used to synthesize the findings. Two reviewers discussed any disagreements to reach consensus and consulted a third reviewer when necessary.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies published from 2003-2024 were included for data extraction. Five studies were qualitative and 6 were mixed methods. Six studies were conducted in the United States, 4 in Canada, and 1 in Australia. Three studies were in adult ICUs, 5 in pediatric, 1 in neonatal, and 2 did not specify the ICU type. All studies were on multidisciplinary bedside rounds, while none were conducted on nursing handovers. The findings revealed that health care professionals generally supported family participation in clinician handovers due to benefits such as improved communication between the health care team and families. However, they also identified barriers, including families' emotional responses to bad news and impact on workflow and teaching opportunities during handovers. Planning, leadership, and clear communication were highlighted as crucial for successfully facilitating family participation in rounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While this review found that health care professionals value family participation in multidisciplinary bedside rounds, they experienced challenges. Future research is required to explore family participation in clinician handovers. Significant planning, investment and preparation is required to include families in ICU handovers.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42020223011.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1898-1937\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00154\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本综述的目的是评估家庭参与成人、儿科和新生儿重症监护病房(icu)临床医生交接时卫生保健专业人员的经验。先前的研究报告了当亲属被送入重症监护时,家庭所经历的情绪困扰,包括出院后创伤后应激障碍症状的风险增加。家庭参与ICU患者护理可以提高安全性和质量的卫生保健结果。此外,家庭参与临床医生交接可以提高对护理的满意度,员工沟通,以及与家庭的人际关系。然而,卫生保健专业人员对家庭参与多学科查房的态度是多种多样的,很少知道他们对家庭参与临床医生交接的看法。纳入标准:纳入涉及医疗保健专业人员和移交期间任何类型的家庭参与的研究,从床边陪伴到参与决策。临床医生交接包括多学科查房或护理交接。设置在任何国家的农村或大都市地区的成人、儿科或新生儿重症监护病房。其他临床背景的研究被排除在外。包括定性研究,以及混合方法研究,如果可以清楚地提取定性数据。方法:检索的数据库包括CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、Scopus、Embase (Ovid)、Emcare (Ovid)、PsycINFO (Ovid)、ProQuest Central(包括ProQuest博士论文和论文)、Web of Science、MedNar和谷歌Scholar,限定词为英文,检索时间范围为2000年至今。最后一次搜索是在2024年10月。两位审稿人独立筛选标题和摘要,并评估符合方法学质量纳入标准的全文文章。使用JBI数据提取工具提取结果,并指定可信度水平。Meta-aggregation用于综合研究结果。两位审稿人讨论任何分歧以达成共识,必要时咨询第三位审稿人。结果:纳入2003-2024年发表的11篇研究进行数据提取。5项研究为定性研究,6项为混合研究。6项研究在美国进行,4项在加拿大进行,1项在澳大利亚进行。3项研究针对成人ICU, 5项针对儿科,1项针对新生儿,2项研究未明确ICU类型。所有的研究都是关于多学科的床边查房,而没有一个是关于护理交接的。研究结果显示,医疗保健专业人员普遍支持家庭参与临床医生的交接,因为这样可以改善医疗保健团队和家庭之间的沟通。然而,他们也发现了障碍,包括家庭对坏消息的情绪反应,以及在移交过程中对工作流程和教学机会的影响。会议强调,规划、领导和明确沟通对于成功促进家庭参与轮次至关重要。结论:虽然本综述发现卫生保健专业人员重视家庭参与多学科床边查房,但他们遇到了挑战,未来的研究需要探索家庭参与临床医生交接。在ICU移交过程中,需要包括家属在内的大量计划、投资和准备工作。评审注册号:PROSPERO CRD42020223011。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Experiences of health care professionals in intensive care when families participate in clinician handovers: a qualitative systematic review.

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate health care professionals' experiences when families participate in clinician handovers in adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units (ICUs).

Introduction: Previous studies report the emotional distress families experience when a relative is admitted to intensive care, including an increased risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after discharge. Family involvement in patient care in ICU can improve safety and quality health care outcomes. Furthermore, family participation in clinician handovers may improve satisfaction with care, staff communication, and interpersonal relationships with families. However, health care professionals' attitudes toward family participation in multidisciplinary ward rounds are diverse, and little is known about their perspectives toward family participation in clinician handovers.

Inclusion criteria: Studies were included if they involved health care professionals and any type of family participation during handover, from bedside presence to participation in decision-making. Clinician handovers included multidisciplinary ward rounds or nursing handovers. Settings were adult, pediatric, or neonatal intensive care units in rural or metropolitan regions in any country. Studies in other clinical contexts were excluded. Qualitative studies were included, as well as mixed methods studies if qualitative data could be clearly extracted.

Methods: Databases searched included CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), ProQuest Central (including ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), Web of Science, MedNar, and Google Scholar, with limiters being English and the year range 2000 to present. The last search was in October 2024. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts and assessed the full-text articles that met inclusion criteria for methodological quality. Findings were extracted using the JBI data extraction tool and assigned a level of credibility. Meta-aggregation was used to synthesize the findings. Two reviewers discussed any disagreements to reach consensus and consulted a third reviewer when necessary.

Results: Eleven studies published from 2003-2024 were included for data extraction. Five studies were qualitative and 6 were mixed methods. Six studies were conducted in the United States, 4 in Canada, and 1 in Australia. Three studies were in adult ICUs, 5 in pediatric, 1 in neonatal, and 2 did not specify the ICU type. All studies were on multidisciplinary bedside rounds, while none were conducted on nursing handovers. The findings revealed that health care professionals generally supported family participation in clinician handovers due to benefits such as improved communication between the health care team and families. However, they also identified barriers, including families' emotional responses to bad news and impact on workflow and teaching opportunities during handovers. Planning, leadership, and clear communication were highlighted as crucial for successfully facilitating family participation in rounds.

Conclusions: While this review found that health care professionals value family participation in multidisciplinary bedside rounds, they experienced challenges. Future research is required to explore family participation in clinician handovers. Significant planning, investment and preparation is required to include families in ICU handovers.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020223011.

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
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
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