血管介入手术知情同意书变异性的关键评估

Q3 Medicine
J. Hotchkiss, Judy Thompson
{"title":"血管介入手术知情同意书变异性的关键评估","authors":"J. Hotchkiss, Judy Thompson","doi":"10.2309/java-d-21-00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n \n \n Background: Vascular access device insertion is one of the most performed procedures in healthcare today. With different device types available to provide infusion therapy, there are many different variables to consider, including the process of obtaining informed consent from patients. This literature review aims to discuss common themes present in current evidence-based practice and point out critical areas of variability that exist.\n Methods: A literature review was conducted searching Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence-Based Practice, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases for recently published articles in the English language and those written in English. Articles were screened to include those that describe informed consent within the context of vascular access or other invasive procedures. There were 35 articles and 5 systematic reviews identified that met criteria for inclusion in this literature review.\n Discussion: The topics of ethics, legal responsibility, who provided consent, and how education about procedures was performed demonstrated clear insight into how to improve the consent process. Some areas in current evidence lack clear direction and create variability in the informed consent procedure. These included who should obtain consent from the patient and which vascular access devices required a written consent. Who obtains consent was found to be more related to current legal precedence and not the clinician inserting the device like that found when a nonphysician clinician performed the procedure. Vascular access device related variability in requiring written versus verbal consent was found to be rooted in the degree of complexity of the procedure, need for specialized training, and the inherent risk to the patient.\n Conclusion: These two areas of variability described in current clinical practice require more research and consensus agreement to standardize the practice of obtaining informed consent in vascular access device insertion.\n","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critical Appraisal of Variability in Informed Consent for Vascular Access Procedures\",\"authors\":\"J. Hotchkiss, Judy Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.2309/java-d-21-00007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n \\n \\n Background: Vascular access device insertion is one of the most performed procedures in healthcare today. With different device types available to provide infusion therapy, there are many different variables to consider, including the process of obtaining informed consent from patients. This literature review aims to discuss common themes present in current evidence-based practice and point out critical areas of variability that exist.\\n Methods: A literature review was conducted searching Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence-Based Practice, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases for recently published articles in the English language and those written in English. Articles were screened to include those that describe informed consent within the context of vascular access or other invasive procedures. There were 35 articles and 5 systematic reviews identified that met criteria for inclusion in this literature review.\\n Discussion: The topics of ethics, legal responsibility, who provided consent, and how education about procedures was performed demonstrated clear insight into how to improve the consent process. Some areas in current evidence lack clear direction and create variability in the informed consent procedure. These included who should obtain consent from the patient and which vascular access devices required a written consent. Who obtains consent was found to be more related to current legal precedence and not the clinician inserting the device like that found when a nonphysician clinician performed the procedure. Vascular access device related variability in requiring written versus verbal consent was found to be rooted in the degree of complexity of the procedure, need for specialized training, and the inherent risk to the patient.\\n Conclusion: These two areas of variability described in current clinical practice require more research and consensus agreement to standardize the practice of obtaining informed consent in vascular access device insertion.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":35321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2309/java-d-21-00007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2309/java-d-21-00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:血管通路装置插入是当今医疗保健中执行最多的程序之一。由于提供输液治疗的设备类型不同,需要考虑许多不同的变量,包括获得患者知情同意的过程。本文献综述旨在讨论当前循证实践中存在的共同主题,并指出存在可变性的关键领域。方法:检索Cochrane Library、Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence-Based Practice、Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health literature、PubMed和谷歌Scholar数据库,检索最近发表的英文文章和用英文撰写的文章。文章经过筛选,包括那些描述血管通路或其他侵入性手术背景下的知情同意的文章。有35篇文章和5篇系统综述符合纳入本文献综述的标准。讨论:伦理、法律责任、谁提供了同意以及如何进行有关程序的教育等主题展示了如何改进同意程序的清晰见解。现有证据中的一些领域缺乏明确的方向,在知情同意程序中造成了变化。其中包括谁应该获得患者的同意,哪些血管通路设备需要书面同意。谁获得同意被认为与当前的法律先例有关,而不是临床医生插入设备,就像非医生临床医生进行手术时那样。研究发现,与血管通路装置相关的书面同意与口头同意的差异,其根源在于手术的复杂性、对专业培训的需求以及对患者的内在风险。结论:在目前的临床实践中,这两个领域的可变性需要更多的研究和共识,以规范血管通路装置插入时获得知情同意的实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Critical Appraisal of Variability in Informed Consent for Vascular Access Procedures
Background: Vascular access device insertion is one of the most performed procedures in healthcare today. With different device types available to provide infusion therapy, there are many different variables to consider, including the process of obtaining informed consent from patients. This literature review aims to discuss common themes present in current evidence-based practice and point out critical areas of variability that exist. Methods: A literature review was conducted searching Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence-Based Practice, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases for recently published articles in the English language and those written in English. Articles were screened to include those that describe informed consent within the context of vascular access or other invasive procedures. There were 35 articles and 5 systematic reviews identified that met criteria for inclusion in this literature review. Discussion: The topics of ethics, legal responsibility, who provided consent, and how education about procedures was performed demonstrated clear insight into how to improve the consent process. Some areas in current evidence lack clear direction and create variability in the informed consent procedure. These included who should obtain consent from the patient and which vascular access devices required a written consent. Who obtains consent was found to be more related to current legal precedence and not the clinician inserting the device like that found when a nonphysician clinician performed the procedure. Vascular access device related variability in requiring written versus verbal consent was found to be rooted in the degree of complexity of the procedure, need for specialized training, and the inherent risk to the patient. Conclusion: These two areas of variability described in current clinical practice require more research and consensus agreement to standardize the practice of obtaining informed consent in vascular access device insertion.
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
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) is an association of healthcare professionals founded in 1985 to promote the emerging vascular access specialty. Today, its multidisciplinary membership advances research, professional and public education to shape practice and enhance patient outcomes, and partners with the device manufacturing community to bring about evidence-based innovations in vascular access.
×
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