A Scoping Review of Patient Discharge From Intensive Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUNDWe conducted a scoping review to systematically review the literature reporting patient discharge from ICUs, identify facilitators and barriers to high-quality care, and describe tools developed to improve care.METHODSWe searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were extracted on the article type, study details for research articles, patient population, phase of care during discharge, and dimensions of health-care quality.RESULTSFrom 8, 154 unique publications we included 224 articles. Of these, 131 articles (58%) were original research, predominantly case series (23%) and cohort (16%) studies; 12% were narrative reviews; and 11% were guidelines/policies. Common themes included patient and family needs/experiences (29% of articles) and the importance of complete and accurate information (26%). Facilitators of high-quality care included provider-patient communication (30%), provider-provider communication (25%), and the use of guidelines/policies (29%). Patient and family anxiety (21%) and limited availability of ICU and ward resources (26%) were reported barriers to high-quality care. A total of 47 tools to facilitate patient discharge from the ICU were identified and focused on patient evaluation for discharge (29%), discharge planning and teaching (47%), and optimized discharge summaries (23%).CONCLUSIONSCommon themes, facilitators and barriers related to patient and family needs/experiences, communication, and the use of guidelines/policies to standardize patient discharge from ICU transcend the literature. Candidate tools to improve care are available; comparative evaluation is needed prior to broad implementation and could be tested through local quality-improvement programs. We conducted a scoping review to systematically review the literature reporting patient discharge from ICUs, identify facilitators and barriers to high-quality care, and describe tools developed to improve care. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were extracted on the article type, study details for research articles, patient population, phase of care during discharge, and dimensions of health-care quality. From 8, 154 unique publications we included 224 articles. Of these, 131 articles (58%) were original research, predominantly case series (23%) and cohort (16%) studies; 12% were narrative reviews; and 11% were guidelines/policies. Common themes included patient and family needs/experiences (29% of articles) and the importance of complete and accurate information (26%). Facilitators of high-quality care included provider-patient communication (30%), provider-provider communication (25%), and the use of guidelines/policies (29%). Patient and family anxiety (21%) and limited availability of ICU and ward resources (26%) were reported barriers to high-quality care. A total of 47 tools to facilitate patient discharge from the ICU were identified and focused on patient evaluation for discharge (29%), discharge planning and teaching (47%), and optimized discharge summaries (23%). Common themes, facilitators and barriers related to patient and family needs/experiences, communication, and the use of guidelines/policies to standardize patient discharge from ICU transcend the literature. Candidate tools to improve care are available; comparative evaluation is needed prior to broad implementation and could be tested through local quality-improvement programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».