4.5 Article

Exploration of pre-hospital patient delays in seeking care for symptoms of bacteremia and sepsis: A qualitative study

期刊

NURSING OPEN
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 2934-2945

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1536

关键词

bacteremia; common-sense model of self-regulation; help-seeking behaviour; infection; nursing; patient delay; qualitative study; quality of life; sepsis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explored patient pre-hospital delays in seeking care for symptoms of bacteremia and sepsis. The main finding revealed that an inability to recognize symptoms of bacteremia resulted in delayed help-seeking, possibly due to patients lacking experience with infection or being unable to differentiate them from symptoms of other chronic co-morbid conditions.
AimWe explored patient pre-hospital delays in seeking care for symptoms of bacteremia and sepsis. DesignA qualitative descriptive study. MethodsIn January 2021, we recruited a convenience sample of four men and six women who were former patients diagnosed with bacteremia. We conducted semi-structured interviews by telephone. The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed using the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation. Data analysis continued until May 2021. ResultsThe three main themes included: gathering threads of information, weaving together the threads of information and impact and outcome of the illness. The main finding revealed was that an inability to recognize symptoms of bacteremia resulted in delayed help-seeking. Participants had difficulty recognizing their symptoms as being related to bacteremia when they lacked experience with infection or could not differentiate them from symptoms of other chronic co-morbid conditions. Recognizing symptoms and searching for their meaning was an early step in developing an action plan for seeking care. Patient-reported physical and psychological outcomes of the infection on their quality of life (QOL) varied widely, from none to major impact.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据