4.3 Article

Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perceptions of Ventricular Assist Device Self-care Education Inform the Development of a Simulation-based Mastery Learning Curriculum

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR NURSING
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 54-65

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000621

关键词

patient-centered care; patient simulation; qualitative research; self care; ventricular assist device

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Nursing Research [1R21NR016745-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patients who undergo ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation and their caregivers must rapidly learn a significant amount of self-care skills and knowledge. Objective The aim of this study was to explore patient, caregiver, VAD coordinator, and physician perspectives and perceptions of existing VAD self-care training to inform development of a simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum to teach patients and caregivers VAD self-care skills and knowledge. Methods We conducted semistructured, in-person interviews with patients with a VAD, their caregivers, VAD coordinators, and physicians (cardiac surgeons, an infectious disease physician, and advanced heart failure cardiologists). We used a 2-cycle team-based iterative inductive approach to coding and analysis. Results We interviewed 16 patients, 12 caregivers, 7 VAD coordinators, and 11 physicians. Seven major themes were derived from the interviews including (1) identification of critical curricular content, (2) need for standardization and assessment, (3) training modalities, (4) benefits of repetition, (5) piercing it all together, (6) need for refresher training, and (7) provision of training before implant. Conclusions Findings from this study suggest that SBML is a natural fit for the high-risk tasks needed to save VAD self-care. The 7 unique training-related themes derived from the qualitative data informed the design and development of a VAD SBML self-care curriculum.

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

4.3
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