| 1. |
- Hill, Loreena, et al.
(author)
-
An insight into healthcare professionals' perspectives on discussing implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation
- 2024
-
In: European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 1474-5151 .- 1873-1953.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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
|
|
| 2. |
- Hill, Loreena, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0889-4655 .- 1550-5049. ; 33:6, s. 527-535
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
