探索情境适应决策辅助和在线培训对重症监护室老年患者护理目标共享决策的影响:一项混合方法研究

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ariane Plaisance, Julien Turgeon, Lucas Gomes Souza, France Légaré, Stéphane Turcotte, Nathalie Germain, Tommy Jean, Maude Dionne, Félix Antoine Fortier, Patrick Plante, Diane Tapp, Véronique Gélinas, Emmanuelle Bélanger, Mark H Ebell, Christian Chabot, Tom H van de Belt, Alexis F Turgeon, Patrick M Archambault
{"title":"探索情境适应决策辅助和在线培训对重症监护室老年患者护理目标共享决策的影响:一项混合方法研究","authors":"Ariane Plaisance, Julien Turgeon, Lucas Gomes Souza, France Légaré, Stéphane Turcotte, Nathalie Germain, Tommy Jean, Maude Dionne, Félix Antoine Fortier, Patrick Plante, Diane Tapp, Véronique Gélinas, Emmanuelle Bélanger, Mark H Ebell, Christian Chabot, Tom H van de Belt, Alexis F Turgeon, Patrick M Archambault","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00761-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an intervention-comprising a context-adapted decision aid (DA) and online shared decision-making (SDM) training for intensivists-on the quality of goals-of-care discussions (GCDs) and the level of involvement of elderly patients in those discussions within an intensive care unit (ICU).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a three-phase before-after mixed-methods implementation study conducted in an ICU in Lévis, Québec, Canada. We followed the StaRI and COREQ reporting guidelines. We recruited patients aged ≥ 65 years and their attending intensivists. We video-recorded GCDs in three phases: Phase I: GCDs without a DA; Phase II: GCDs with a DA about goals of care but no online training; and Phase III: GCDs with both a DA about goals of care and online training about SDM. All GCDs recordings were transcribed verbatim. We measured the level of patient engagement by intensivists in SDM about goals of care through the OPTION scale and evaluated GCDs quality using the Audit of Communication, Care Planning, and Documentation (ACCEPT) indicators. A qualitative thematic analysis of transcriptions of the encounters was also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 359 eligible patients, the study included 21 patients (71% men; median age, 77 years; 57% without high school diploma) and five intensivists (80% men; median age, 35 years). Despite completing online training, the DA was never used in recorded encounters. We did not perform any tests of statistical significance to compare results in each study phase because of small sample sizes over each phase. OPTION and ACCEPT scores were low in each phase, but physicians did engage in GCDs. We found that 76% of documented goals of care for life-sustaining therapy were consistent with patient preferences expressed during recorded GCD, a determination made by two independent observers. Several patients expressed confusion about GCDs. Regarding the use of a DA to support SDM in GCDs, intensivists identified several barriers and facilitators. Barriers included physician attitudes, lack of training, and systemic pressures, while a patient-centered approach and positive patient attitudes were seen as key facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite implementing a context-adapted DA and online SDM training, this study found no significant improvement in the quality of GCDs or patient engagement, notably as the DA was not utilized. Communication barriers and patient confusion about goals of care highlight the persistent challenges in achieving true SDM in the ICU. Future strategies should focus on overcoming identified barriers for successful integration of such interventions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04034979.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Impact of a Context-Adapted Decision Aid and Online Training About Shared Decision Making About Goals of Care with Elderly Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Mixed-Methods Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ariane Plaisance, Julien Turgeon, Lucas Gomes Souza, France Légaré, Stéphane Turcotte, Nathalie Germain, Tommy Jean, Maude Dionne, Félix Antoine Fortier, Patrick Plante, Diane Tapp, Véronique Gélinas, Emmanuelle Bélanger, Mark H Ebell, Christian Chabot, Tom H van de Belt, Alexis F Turgeon, Patrick M Archambault\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-025-00761-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an intervention-comprising a context-adapted decision aid (DA) and online shared decision-making (SDM) training for intensivists-on the quality of goals-of-care discussions (GCDs) and the level of involvement of elderly patients in those discussions within an intensive care unit (ICU).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a three-phase before-after mixed-methods implementation study conducted in an ICU in Lévis, Québec, Canada. We followed the StaRI and COREQ reporting guidelines. We recruited patients aged ≥ 65 years and their attending intensivists. We video-recorded GCDs in three phases: Phase I: GCDs without a DA; Phase II: GCDs with a DA about goals of care but no online training; and Phase III: GCDs with both a DA about goals of care and online training about SDM. All GCDs recordings were transcribed verbatim. We measured the level of patient engagement by intensivists in SDM about goals of care through the OPTION scale and evaluated GCDs quality using the Audit of Communication, Care Planning, and Documentation (ACCEPT) indicators. A qualitative thematic analysis of transcriptions of the encounters was also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 359 eligible patients, the study included 21 patients (71% men; median age, 77 years; 57% without high school diploma) and five intensivists (80% men; median age, 35 years). Despite completing online training, the DA was never used in recorded encounters. We did not perform any tests of statistical significance to compare results in each study phase because of small sample sizes over each phase. OPTION and ACCEPT scores were low in each phase, but physicians did engage in GCDs. We found that 76% of documented goals of care for life-sustaining therapy were consistent with patient preferences expressed during recorded GCD, a determination made by two independent observers. Several patients expressed confusion about GCDs. Regarding the use of a DA to support SDM in GCDs, intensivists identified several barriers and facilitators. Barriers included physician attitudes, lack of training, and systemic pressures, while a patient-centered approach and positive patient attitudes were seen as key facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite implementing a context-adapted DA and online SDM training, this study found no significant improvement in the quality of GCDs or patient engagement, notably as the DA was not utilized. Communication barriers and patient confusion about goals of care highlight the persistent challenges in achieving true SDM in the ICU. Future strategies should focus on overcoming identified barriers for successful integration of such interventions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04034979.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00761-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00761-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估一项干预措施(包括情境适应决策辅助(DA)和重症监护医生在线共享决策(SDM)培训)对重症监护病房(ICU)内护理目标讨论(gcd)质量和老年患者参与这些讨论的水平的影响。方法:这是一项在加拿大魁地省魁地省的一所ICU进行的前后混合方法实施的三期研究。我们遵循StaRI和COREQ报告准则。我们招募年龄≥65岁的患者及其主治重症医师。我们分三个阶段录制gcd:第一阶段:没有DA的gcd;第二阶段:gcd,有关于护理目标的数据,但没有在线培训;第三阶段:gcd,既有关于护理目标的数据,也有关于SDM的在线培训。所有gcd录音均逐字转录。我们通过OPTION量表测量重症医师在SDM中对护理目标的患者参与程度,并使用沟通、护理计划和文件审计(ACCEPT)指标评估gcd的质量。还对遭遇战记录进行了定性专题分析。结果:在359名符合条件的患者中,研究包括21名患者(71%为男性,中位年龄为77岁,57%没有高中文凭)和5名重症监护医师(80%为男性,中位年龄为35岁)。尽管完成了在线培训,但DA从未在有记录的遭遇中使用过。由于每个阶段的样本量较小,我们没有进行任何具有统计学意义的检验来比较每个研究阶段的结果。OPTION和ACCEPT在每个阶段的得分都很低,但医生确实参与了gcd。我们发现76%记录的维持生命治疗的护理目标与记录的GCD期间表达的患者偏好一致,这是由两个独立观察者做出的决定。几名患者表示对gcd感到困惑。关于在gcd中使用数据支持SDM的问题,支持者指出了几个障碍和促进因素。障碍包括医生的态度、缺乏培训和系统压力,而以患者为中心的方法和积极的患者态度被视为关键的促进因素。结论:尽管实施了情境适应DA和在线SDM培训,但本研究发现gcd的质量和患者参与度没有显著提高,特别是DA没有被使用。沟通障碍和患者对护理目标的困惑突出了在ICU实现真正SDM的持续挑战。今后的战略应侧重于克服已确定的障碍,使这些干预措施能够成功地结合起来。试验注册号:NCT04034979。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the Impact of a Context-Adapted Decision Aid and Online Training About Shared Decision Making About Goals of Care with Elderly Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an intervention-comprising a context-adapted decision aid (DA) and online shared decision-making (SDM) training for intensivists-on the quality of goals-of-care discussions (GCDs) and the level of involvement of elderly patients in those discussions within an intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods: This was a three-phase before-after mixed-methods implementation study conducted in an ICU in Lévis, Québec, Canada. We followed the StaRI and COREQ reporting guidelines. We recruited patients aged ≥ 65 years and their attending intensivists. We video-recorded GCDs in three phases: Phase I: GCDs without a DA; Phase II: GCDs with a DA about goals of care but no online training; and Phase III: GCDs with both a DA about goals of care and online training about SDM. All GCDs recordings were transcribed verbatim. We measured the level of patient engagement by intensivists in SDM about goals of care through the OPTION scale and evaluated GCDs quality using the Audit of Communication, Care Planning, and Documentation (ACCEPT) indicators. A qualitative thematic analysis of transcriptions of the encounters was also performed.

Results: Out of 359 eligible patients, the study included 21 patients (71% men; median age, 77 years; 57% without high school diploma) and five intensivists (80% men; median age, 35 years). Despite completing online training, the DA was never used in recorded encounters. We did not perform any tests of statistical significance to compare results in each study phase because of small sample sizes over each phase. OPTION and ACCEPT scores were low in each phase, but physicians did engage in GCDs. We found that 76% of documented goals of care for life-sustaining therapy were consistent with patient preferences expressed during recorded GCD, a determination made by two independent observers. Several patients expressed confusion about GCDs. Regarding the use of a DA to support SDM in GCDs, intensivists identified several barriers and facilitators. Barriers included physician attitudes, lack of training, and systemic pressures, while a patient-centered approach and positive patient attitudes were seen as key facilitators.

Conclusion: Despite implementing a context-adapted DA and online SDM training, this study found no significant improvement in the quality of GCDs or patient engagement, notably as the DA was not utilized. Communication barriers and patient confusion about goals of care highlight the persistent challenges in achieving true SDM in the ICU. Future strategies should focus on overcoming identified barriers for successful integration of such interventions.

Trial registration number: NCT04034979.

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
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
×
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