4.1 Article

A New Model for Intensive Care Unit Follow-up The Attention-to List as an Alternative to the Checklist

期刊

CIN-COMPUTERS INFORMATICS NURSING
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 195-204

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000893

关键词

Collaboration; ICU follow-up; Nursing; Participatory design; Patient handover; Patient safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this paper is to investigate a new model for ICU follow-up co-designed by nurses from four different wards. The study compares the checklist with an alternative attention-to list and suggests a new model that accommodates both ICU and general ward contexts. The findings show that the new model, characterized by being goal-oriented and putting nursing expertise at its core, overcomes the obstacles faced by the traditional checklist approach.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate a new model for ICU follow-up co-designed by nurses from four different wards. This paper aims to compare the checklist aiding the ICU follow-ups with an alternative attention-to list. Nurses from four wards co-designed a new take on the ICU follow-up procedure. The study included users in designing the procedure and provided the users with the opportunity to influence the product that affects their clinical practices. We compare the attention-to list with the checklist and suggest a new model for follow-up after patients are transferred from an ICU to a general ward. The nurses who participated found that the traditional checklist approach creates more obstacles than it supports. The obstacles are due to the change in context as the follow-up plan is initiated in the ICU but is performed on the general ward. Therefore, the plan must accommodate both working environments. In conclusion, the new model for ICU follow-up is characterized by being goal-oriented and putting nursing expertise at its core. Furthermore, the new model can adapt to the change in context as it is initiated in the ICU setting and executed in a general ward.

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

4.1
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