Patient, family and nurse experiences with patient presence during handovers in acute care hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the best available evidence on patients', family members' and nurses' experiences with bedside handovers in acute care settings. INTRODUCTION: The transfer of patient information between nurses represents a critical component of safety within health care. Conducting handover at the bedside allows patients and families to participate in information exchanges. Studies that address bedside handover highlight benefits and concerns with their implementation. Insight into patients', families' and nurses' experiences with bedside handovers can help to identify the most appropriate and safest approach to handovers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The current review considered patients, family members and nurses in the acute care hospital setting. Nurses included licensed nurses, registered nurses, practical nurses, nursing assistants, nurse researchers, and advanced practice nurses. METHODS: A three-step search strategy was used to identify English language qualitative primary research studies. Two reviewers independently appraised the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Qualitative studies that considered attitudes, beliefs and experiences of patients, families and nurses on patient presence during bedside handover were considered for this review. Papers included in the review were from 1998 to 2017. RESULTS: The review included 12 qualitative publications. Key findings were extracted and classified as unequivocal (U) or credible (C). A total of 96 findings were extracted and aggregated into 14 categories. From the 14 categories, five synthesized findings were developed: i) becoming more informed; ii) upholding confidentiality and privacy; iii) varying desire and ability to participate; iv) individualizing patient care; and v) challenges in conducting bedside handovers can be overcome with adaptive practices. CONCLUSIONS: This review captured the experiences of patients, families and nurses with patient presence during bedside handovers in a hospital setting. For the most part, patients and families describe bedside handover positively, reporting feeling more informed and engaged in care. This review highlights areas where patients' and nurses' views on bedside reporting may differ, particularly in the areas of desire to participate and the need for confidentiality. Although hospital environments can create challenges in sharing personal patient information at the bedside, these may be overcome through education and by the adoption of a flexible and individualized approach.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,139 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».