| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Hill, Loreena, et al.
(författare)
-
An insight into healthcare professionals' perspectives on discussing implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 1474-5151 .- 1873-1953.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims International studies have examined patients' views concerning the discussion of deactivating an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Findings reported that many patients were either not informed about the subject or were informed late in their illness trajectory. This study aimed to explore healthcare professionals' perspectives on discussing ICD deactivation and identify priorities for clinical practice and future research.Methods and results Eleven interviews were conducted, involving heart failure nurses, physicians, and an allied professional. All were responsible for the care of patients with an ICD, from the UK or Sweden. A semi-structured guide was used. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated (as applicable), and analysed independently by experienced researchers, using framework analysis. Findings were presented, along with published work at a stakeholder meeting, and a consensus agreement was reached on priorities for clinical practice and future research. Four themes emerged from the exploratory interviews. Healthcare professionals described the discussion about deactivation as challenging, requiring compassion and involvement of family members. They agreed that the topic should be initiated prior to, or shortly after, device implantation. This was reflected in the priorities to improve communication, through the increased availability and implementation of prompts and tools, as well as the provision of tailored information to patients and family members. Stakeholders recognized the future potential of digital technology in device education.Conclusion Discussing deactivation remains challenging. Healthcare professionals recognized the need to initiate the discussion early, with compassion and involvement of family members. Priorities were agreed by stakeholders, which require clinical implementation and further research. Graphical Abstract
|
|
| 4. |
- Hill, Loreena, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient and Professional Factors That Impact the Perceived Likelihood and Confidence of Healthcare Professionals to Discuss Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Deactivation in Advanced Heart Failure Results From an International Factorial Survey
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0889-4655 .- 1550-5049. ; 33:6, s. 527-535
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Rate of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantations is increasing in patients with advanced heart failure. Despite clear guideline recommendations, discussions addressing deactivation occur infrequently. Aim: The aim of this article is to explore patient and professional factors that impact perceived likelihood and confidence of healthcare professionals to discuss ICD deactivation. Methods and Results: Between 2015 and 2016, an international sample of 262 healthcare professionals (65% nursing, 24% medical) completed an online factorial survey, encompassing a demographic questionnaire and clinical vignettes. Each vignette had 9 randomly manipulated and embedded patient-related factors, considered as independent variables, providing 1572 unique vignettes for analysis. These factors were determined through synthesis of a systematic literature review, a retrospective case note review, and a qualitative exploratory study. Results showed that most healthcare professionals agreed that deactivation discussions should be initiated by a cardiologist (95%, n = 255) or a specialist nurse (81%, n = 215). In terms of experience, 84% of cardiologists (n = 53) but only 30% of nurses (n = 50) had previously been involved in a deactivation decision. Healthcare professionals valued patient involvement in deactivation decisions; however, only 50% (n = 130) actively involved family members. Five of 9 clinical factors were associated with an increased likelihood to discuss deactivation including advanced age, severe heart failure, presence of malignancy, receipt of multiple ICD shocks, and more than 3 hospital admissions during the previous year. Furthermore, nationality and discipline significantly influenced likelihood and confidence in decision making. Conclusions: Guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals discuss ICD deactivation; however, practice is suboptimal with multifactorial factors impacting on decision making. The role and responsibility of nurses in discussing deactivation require clarity and improvement.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- McKee, Gabrielle, et al.
(författare)
-
Barriers to ESC guideline implementation: results of a survey from the European Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (CCNAP)
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. - 1474-5151 .- 1873-1953. ; 16:8, s. 678-686
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has a comprehensive clinical guideline development programme, relevant for all clinicians. However, implementation of guidelines is not always optimal. Aim: The aim of this study was to determine nurses and allied professionals awareness and barriers regarding clinical guideline implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administrated online and in print at EuroHeartCare 2015. A questionnaire was developed which examined awareness and barriers to implementation of ESC guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (2012) and ESC guidelines in general. Results: Of the 298 respondents, 12% reported that the prevention guidelines were used in their practice area. Respondents identified, in order of magnitude, that lack of leadership, workload, time, resources and a perception that they were unable to influence current practice were barriers to the use of the prevention guidelines. When asked to rank barriers to use of any ESC guidelines, time (22%) and leadership (23%) were ranked highest. Conclusions: Implementation of ESC guidelines by nurses, the majority responders in this survey, is a serious problem, requiring urgent improvement to ensure patients receive optimal evidence based care. Issues of leadership, workload, time and resources are significant barriers to guideline implementation. It is of concern that these professionals perceive both that they have little influence on implementation decisions and lack of leadership regarding guideline implementation. Educational and organisational strategies to improve leadership skills are imperative. These will build self-efficacy and empower nurses and allied professionals to advocate for evidence-based care in the clinical environment.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Riegel, Barbara, et al.
(författare)
-
Self-care research : Where are we now? Where are we going?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Nursing Studies. - : PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD. - 0020-7489 .- 1873-491X. ; 116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and objective: The beneficial effects of self-care include improved well-being and lower morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. In this article we address the current state of self-care research and propose an agenda for future research based on the inaugural conference of the International Center for Self-Care Research held in Rome, Italy in June 2019. The vision of this Center is a world where self-care is prioritized by individuals, families, and communities and is the first line of approach in every health care encounter. The mission of the Center is to lead the self-care research endeavor, improving conceptual clarity and promoting interdisciplinary work informed by a shared vision addressing knowledge gaps. A focused research agenda can deepen our theoretical understanding of self-care and the mechanisms underlying self-care, which can contribute to the development of effective interventions that improve outcomes. Methods: During conference discussions, we identified seven major reasons why self-care is challenging, which can be grouped into the general categories of behavior change and illness related factors. We identified six specific knowledge gaps that, if addressed, may help to address these challenges: the influence of habit formation on behavior change, resilience in the face of stressful life events that interfere with self-care, the influence of culture on self-care behavioral choices, the difficulty performing self-care with multiple chronic conditions, self-care in persons with severe mental illness, and the influence of others (care partners, family, peer supporters, and healthcare professionals) on self-care. Plans to achieve results: To achieve the vision and mission of the Center, we will lead a collaborative program of research that addresses self-care knowledge gaps and improves outcomes, create a supportive international network for knowledge transfer and support of innovations in self-care research, and support and train others in self-care research. Beyond these specific short-term goals, important policy implications of this work are discussed. (c) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ )
|
|
