ROLE OF A CLINICIAN NURSE IN MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITAL CONSULTATION REFERRALS IN A TERTIARY CARE PAIN CLINIC. PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A-1021-0080-01435 Abstract title: Role of a clinician nurse in management of hospital consultation referrals in a tertiary care pain clinic. Preliminary results Poster presentation (Human/Clinical)Role of a clinician nurse in management of hospital consultation referrals in a tertiary care pain clinic. Preliminary results.L. Guay1,, G. Vargas-Schaffer1,2, M. Eghtesadi1,21Pain Center of Centre Hospitalier de l'Universitu00e9 de Montru00e9al (CHUM), Montru00e9al, Canada, 2Centre de Recherche du CHUM (CRCHUM), Montru00e9al, Canada.Background and aimsUtilization of a clinician nurse for management of patients with chronic pain has been encouraged in the past as part of an interest to reduce the cost of medical care, but also to give the patient a more personalized and less crisis-oriented service. Here we present results of such a collaboration for patients who are admitted at a tertiary care hospital and medically stabilized but who require chronic pain services. MethodsThe clinician nurse time is dedicated to these referrals and begins with triage of elements used for priority. The clinician nurse intervention then involves significant teaching towards nursing and medical staff about overall use of analgesics, patient advocacy and presence amongst multidisciplinary meetings. ResultsThe pain clinic staff physician will only be consulted for 3 out of 4 new referrals and 1 out of 5 reassessments. There is a constant pool of 10-15 admitted patients for which our pain clinic is actively involved but only 1 out of 10 will require outpatient follow up at our clinic after discharge. Assessment facilitators include positive physician attitude towards a clinician nurse expertise and support from hospital administration. The most common barriers include staffing shortages and negative prejudice towards patients viewed as having u2018u2019pain or opioid seeking behaviouru2019u2019.ConclusionAn established collaborative agreement between a clinician nurse and a group of physicians leads to reduced discharge times for patients. References1.Schadewaldt V, McInnes E, Hiller JE, Gardner A. Views and experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners with collaborative practice in primary health care - an integrative review. BMC family practice. 2013;14:132.2.McCaffrey RG, Hayes R, Stuart W, Cassell A, Farrell C, Miller-Reyes C, et al. A program to improve communication and collaboration between nurses and medical residents. Journal of continuing education in nursing. 2010;41(4):172-3.Tschannen D, Kalisch BJ. The impact of nurse/physician collaboration on patient length of stay. Journal of nursing management. 2009;17(7):796-803.4.Ettner SL, Kotlerman J, Afifi A, Vazirani S, Hays RD, Shapiro M, et al. An alternative approach to reducing the costs of patient care? A controlled trial of the multi-disciplinary doctor-nurse practitioner (MDNP) model. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2006;26(1):9-17.5.Cowan MJ, Shapiro M, Hays RD, Afifi A, Vazirani S, Ward CR, et al. The effect of a multidisciplinary hospitalist/physician and advanced practice nurse collaboration on hospital costs. The Journal of nursing administration. 2006;36(2):79-85.6.Zwarenstein M, Goldman J, Reeves S. Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2009(3):Cd000072.7. Connelly SV, Connelly PA. Physicians' patient referrals to a nurse practitioner in a primary care medical clinic. American journal of public health. 1979;69(1):73-5.
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 | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».