MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2347198228 · doi:10.1177/0141076816646944

Moving patients to create bed capacity

2016· editorial· en· W2347198228 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jim George, Iain Wilkinson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2016
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDeliriumMedical emergencyPsychological interventionQuarter (Canadian coin)Emergency medicineEmergency departmentNursingIntensive care medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Bed crises are now commonplace in our acute hospitals. Patients regularly wait in crowded emergency departments, breaching the four-hour target because of lack of available acute medical inpatient beds. There has been a year on year increase in emergency medical admissions and hospitals have consistently high bed occupancies. A common short-term solution to the problem is to ‘board out’ patients from medical wards to surgical wards or even temporarily to day units to facilitate patients to be transferred out of the emergency department. However such non-clinical patient moves can be harmful. They predominantly affect older, frailer patients, and increase the risk of falls, delirium, medication errors and extend length of stay. Furthermore, they may disrupt arrangements for a complex discharge at a crucial time. Ninety-two percent of doctors would refuse to have their relatives boarded on a different ward. One-quarter of nurses responding to a Royal College of Nursing Scotland survey (152 respondents) reported that patients who were being appropriately cared for on their last night were moved to an inappropriate ward not equipped or staffed for the specialist monitoring and interventions required for their condition. Doctors become involved in undocumented decisions to board out patients to create extra medical bed capacity. Consultants in particular find themselves walking a tightrope with person-centred care and professionalism on one side and the realities of running an acute service on the other. The four-hour target for assessment and transfer or discharge from emergency departments was introduced in 2004 with the intention of improving the quality of emergency care and is a major driver in the UK. However, targets can have unintended effects such as increasing emergency department attendances and distorting clinical priorities. There is a relationship between crowding in emergency departments and increased mortality. This does not necessarily denote direct cause and effect and it is possible that the overcrowding could at least be partly due to an influx of older, sicker patients. However, there are obviously many other factors involved. Crowded emergency departments result in lower quality of care – delays in analgesia, antibiotic treatment, thrombolysis in stroke and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients admitted through crowded emergency departments have longer hospital stays. Crowded emergency departments also harm staff with increased absenteeism, staff sickness, burn out and poor recruitment. A stated aim of the NHS is to become more person-centred. Patient autonomy is central to person-centred care. It is difficult to justify moving patients for non-clinical reasons as patient-centred. It is a paradox that we respect a patient’s autonomy when a patient wishes to discharge themselves unwisely against medical advice but not to allow them to choose to remain on a medical specialist ward when it is clearly in their best interests. Unfortunately, NHS bed pressures can sometimes be a potential barrier to the worthy aim of providing person-centred care. The Royal College of Physicians Future Hospital Commission report recommends that patients should not be moved between wards unless it is necessary for clinical care. It also defines the modern principles of medical professionalism. Professionalism is a partnership between patient and doctor based on mutual respect, individual responsibility and accountability. Professionals should make decisions with patients, maintaining trust and integrity. Virtue ethics links closely with the ideals of modern professionalism and helps find solutions to complex clinical problems. Virtue ethics emphasises virtues such as compassion and truthfulness or moral character, in contrast to an approach that emphasises duties or rules (deontology) or one that emphasises the consequences of actions (utilitarianism) Utilitarianism offers little protection for the vulnerable in our hospitals. Moving patients, especially if

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,046
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,155

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,003
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,013
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0460,012

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the Royal Society of MedicineMême sujetEmergency and Acute Care StudiesTravaux en français237 207