Engaging in resuscitation status conversations in psychiatry: A qualitative study of nurses’ perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Discussion and documentation of a patient's resuscitation status are essential aspects of any hospital admission, and yet, they seldomly occur in psychiatry. Nurses play an important role in resuscitation status determination by being an information broker, supporter and advocate. Persons with mental illness may be competent to engage in the determination of their resuscitation status and deserve the same respect and autonomy as other patients during this process. There are no published qualitative studies exploring healthcare providers experiences in initiating resuscitation status conversations in the psychiatric setting. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: An in-depth qualitative understanding of the complexity of resuscitation status determination in psychiatry. The shared experiences of nurses enacting their role in resuscitation status determination with patients admitted to psychiatry. The challenges of implementing a 'one-size fits all' approach to resuscitation status policies, and the ways in which depression and/or suicidal ideation influence the process. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Role clarity and improved communication between providers about resuscitation status determination in psychiatry are needed. Hospital policies for resuscitation status determination must account for the psychiatric context to ensure patients' goals of care are known and upheld. Nurses working in psychiatry should initiate and more readily engage in resuscitation status conversations. ABSTRACT: Introduction Patients with mental illness experience stigma and marginalization, which affects the quality of their health care. In most settings, end-of-life decisions, including goals of care, must be discussed with all patients upon hospital admission, including determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation preferences in the event of a medical emergency. Despite this requirement, these conversations do not routinely occur in inpatient psychiatry. By default, patients become a 'full code status', mandating life-sustaining interventions. Aim To explore how and why resuscitation status conversations occur, or do not occur, in inpatient psychiatry from the perspectives of healthcare providers. Method Qualitative descriptive study using focus groups with nurses working in psychiatry. Results Nurses' experiences with initiating and engaging in resuscitation status conversations related to Working in Psychiatry, which represents the current practices and the participants' views of the nursing role; Caring for Psychiatric Patients, which describes how fluctuating competency and suicidality influence determination; and The Influence of Physical Health Status, which details how differences in physical health status affect how healthcare providers engage in resuscitation status determination. Discussion Although the importance of completing resuscitation status conversations with patients admitted to psychiatry was expressed by participants, they seldomly occur. There is ambiguity about when and how to determine patient wishes. Implications for practice Tailored strategies are needed to ensure patients' rights to self-determination are upheld when they are admitted to psychiatry. Nurses working in this setting would benefit from education, training and support to adequately initiate and engage in these conversations.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».