• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Australian residential aged care home staff experiences of implementing an intervention to improve palliative and end-of-life care for residents: A qualitative study.澳大利亚养老院工作人员实施改善患者姑息治疗和临终关怀干预措施的体验:一项定性研究。
Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Nov;30(6):e5588-e5601. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13984. Epub 2022 Sep 6.
2
Using Palliative Care Needs Rounds in the UK for care home staff and residents: an implementation science study.在英国,使用姑息治疗需求评估小组为养老院工作人员和居民提供服务:一项实施科学研究。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Jul;12(19):1-134. doi: 10.3310/KRWQ5829.
3
Australian general practice experiences of implementing a structured approach to initiating advance care planning and palliative care: a qualitative study.澳大利亚全科医学实施结构化方法启动预先医疗照护计划和姑息治疗的经验:一项定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 Mar 28;12(3):e057184. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057184.
4
Context and mechanisms that enable implementation of specialist palliative care Needs Rounds in care homes: results from a qualitative interview study.养老院中促成实施专科姑息治疗需求轮诊的背景和机制:一项定性访谈研究的结果
BMC Palliat Care. 2021 Jul 22;20(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00812-4.
5
Barriers and facilitators to optimal supportive end-of-life palliative care in long-term care facilities: a qualitative descriptive study of community-based and specialist palliative care physicians' experiences, perceptions and perspectives.长期护理机构中最佳支持性临终姑息治疗的障碍和促进因素:一项基于社区和专科姑息治疗医生的经验、看法和观点的定性描述性研究。
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 5;10(8):e037466. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037466.
6
Improved Quality of Death and Dying in Care Homes: A Palliative Care Stepped Wedge Randomized Control Trial in Australia.改善养老院临终关怀质量:澳大利亚缓和医疗递进式楔形随机对照试验。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Feb;68(2):305-312. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16192. Epub 2019 Nov 4.
7
Palliative and end-of-life care in care homes: protocol for codesigning and implementing an appropriate scalable model of Needs Rounds in the UK.安养院的姑息治疗和终末期关怀:在英国共同设计和实施适当的、可扩展的需求评估轮模型的方案。
BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 22;11(2):e049486. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049486.
8
Barriers to and facilitators for implementing quality improvements in palliative care - results from a qualitative interview study in Norway.挪威一项质性访谈研究的结果:姑息治疗质量改进的障碍与促进因素
BMC Palliat Care. 2016 Jul 15;15:61. doi: 10.1186/s12904-016-0132-5.
9
Towards evidence-based palliative care in nursing homes in Sweden: a qualitative study informed by the organizational readiness to change theory.迈向瑞典养老院基于证据的姑息治疗:一项基于组织变革准备理论的定性研究。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 4;13(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0699-0.
10
Effectiveness of professional oral health care intervention on the oral health of residents with dementia in residential aged care facilities: a systematic review protocol.专业口腔保健干预对老年护理机构中痴呆症居民口腔健康的有效性:一项系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):110-22. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2330.

引用本文的文献

1
How Have Quality Improvement Strategies Been Adopted and How Has Impact Been Assessed in Care Homes for Older People? A Systematic Search and Narrative Review.在养老院中,质量改进策略是如何被采用的,以及影响是如何被评估的?一项系统检索与叙述性综述
Int J Older People Nurs. 2025 Sep;20(5):e70036. doi: 10.1111/opn.70036.
2
'Early planning makes for a good death': residential aged care nurses' views on caring for those in the last months of life.“提前规划造就善终”:老年护理院护士对临终前几个月患者护理的看法
BMC Nurs. 2025 Jul 1;24(1):719. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03411-3.
3
Hindering Factors and Perceived Needs for the Decision Making of Advanced Directives Among People with Dementia and Their Families.痴呆症患者及其家属在制定预立医疗指示决策过程中的阻碍因素及感知需求
Geriatrics (Basel). 2025 Feb 1;10(1):19. doi: 10.3390/geriatrics10010019.
4
Palliative care in nursing homes: A qualitative study on referral criteria and implications for research and practice.养老院中的姑息治疗:关于转诊标准及对研究与实践影响的定性研究
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024 Aug;72(8):2590-2594. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18938. Epub 2024 May 9.
5
Factors that influence the implementation of innovation in aged care: a scoping review.影响老年护理创新实施的因素:一项范围综述
JBI Evid Implement. 2023 Dec 29;22(1):61-80. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000407.
6
The Experiences of Nursing Managers in Implementing Palliative Care in Long-Term Care Facilities.护理管理者在长期护理机构实施姑息治疗的经验
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023 Dec 15;16:4053-4070. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S442467. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
Champions for improved adherence to guidelines in long-term care homes: a systematic review.长期护理机构中提高指南依从性的倡导者:一项系统综述
Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Aug 3;2(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00185-y.
2
Context and mechanisms that enable implementation of specialist palliative care Needs Rounds in care homes: results from a qualitative interview study.养老院中促成实施专科姑息治疗需求轮诊的背景和机制:一项定性访谈研究的结果
BMC Palliat Care. 2021 Jul 22;20(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12904-021-00812-4.
3
Staff Training Interventions to Improve End-of-Life Care of Nursing Home Residents: A Systematic Review.员工培训干预措施以改善养老院居民的临终关怀:系统评价。
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021 Feb;22(2):268-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.09.011. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
4
Development and use of a toolkit to facilitate implementation of an evidence-based intervention: a descriptive case study.促进循证干预措施实施的工具包的开发与应用:一项描述性案例研究
Implement Sci Commun. 2020 Oct 6;1:86. doi: 10.1186/s43058-020-00081-x. eCollection 2020.
5
Palliative and end-of-life educational interventions for staff working in long-term care facilities: An integrative review of the literature.长期护理机构工作人员的姑息治疗和临终关怀教育干预措施:文献的综合回顾。
Int J Older People Nurs. 2021 Jan;16(1):e12347. doi: 10.1111/opn.12347. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
6
Palliative care delivery in residential aged care: bereaved family member experiences of the Supportive Hospice Aged Residential Exchange (SHARE) intervention.安养院中的缓和医疗服务提供:支持性临终关怀安养院交流(SHARE)干预措施中丧亲家庭成员的体验。
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Aug 17;19(1):127. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00633-x.
7
Qualitative evaluation in nursing interventions-A review of the literature.护理干预中的质性评价——文献综述
Nurs Open. 2020 Jun 2;7(5):1285-1298. doi: 10.1002/nop2.519. eCollection 2020 Sep.
8
A pilot evaluation of the Strengthening a Palliative Approach in Long-Term Care (SPA-LTC) program.长期护理中强化舒缓治疗方法(SPA-LTC)项目的初步评估。
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Jul 13;19(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00599-w.
9
Challenges faced by residential aged care staff in decision-making for residents with dementia.老年痴呆症患者的居住护理人员在决策方面面临的挑战。
Dementia (London). 2021 May;20(4):1270-1283. doi: 10.1177/1471301220929154. Epub 2020 Jun 14.
10
Reducing time in acute hospitals: A stepped-wedge randomised control trial of a specialist palliative care intervention in residential care homes.减少急性医院住院时间:在养老院中实施专科姑息治疗干预的渐进式随机对照试验。
Palliat Med. 2020 May;34(5):571-579. doi: 10.1177/0269216319891077. Epub 2020 Jan 2.

澳大利亚养老院工作人员实施改善患者姑息治疗和临终关怀干预措施的体验:一项定性研究。

Australian residential aged care home staff experiences of implementing an intervention to improve palliative and end-of-life care for residents: A qualitative study.

机构信息

The Palliative Centre, HammondCare, Greenwich Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Nov;30(6):e5588-e5601. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13984. Epub 2022 Sep 6.

DOI:10.1111/hsc.13984
PMID:36068671
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10087131/
Abstract

Access to high-quality and safe evidence-based palliative care (PC) is important to ensure good end-of-life care for older people in residential aged care homes (RACHs). However, many barriers to providing PC in RACHs are frequently cited. The Quality End-of-Life Care (QEoLC) Project was a multicomponent intervention that included training, evidence-based tools and tele-mentoring, aiming to equip healthcare professionals and careworkers in RACHs with knowledge, skills and confidence in providing PC to residents. This study aims to understand: (1) the experiences of healthcare professionals, careworkers, care managers, planners/implementers who participated in the implementation of the QEoLC Project; and (2) the barriers and facilitators to the implementation. Staff from two RACHs in New South Wales, Australia were recruited between September to November 2021. Semi-structured interviews and thematic data analysis were used. Fifteen participants (seven health professionals [includes one nurse, two clinical educators, three workplace trainers, one clinical manager/nurse], three careworkers and five managers) were interviewed. Most RACH participants agreed that the QEoLC Project increased their awareness of PC and provided them with the skills/confidence to openly discuss death and dying. Participants perceived that the components of the QEoLC Project had the following benefits for residents: more appropriate use of medications, initiation of timely pain management and discussions with families regarding end-of-life care preferences. Key facilitators for implementation were the role of champions, the role of the steering committee, regular clinical meetings to discuss at-risk residents and mentoring. Implementation barriers included: high staff turnover, COVID-19 pandemic, time constraints, perceived absence of executive sponsorship, lack of practical support and systems-related barriers. The findings underline the need for strong leadership, supportive organisational culture and commitment to the implementation of processes for improving the quality of end-of-life care. Furthermore, the results highlight the need for codesigning the intervention with RACHs, provision of dedicated staff/resources to support implementation, and integration of project tools with existing systems for achieving effective implementation outcomes.

摘要

为确保养老院(RACH)中的老年人得到高质量和安全的循证临终关怀(PC),获得这种关怀至关重要。然而,在 RACH 中提供 PC 时经常会遇到许多障碍。质量临终关怀(QEoLC)项目是一个多组件干预措施,包括培训、循证工具和远程指导,旨在为 RACH 中的医疗保健专业人员和护理人员提供提供 PC 给居民所需的知识、技能和信心。本研究旨在了解:(1)参与实施 QEoLC 项目的医疗保健专业人员、护理人员、护理经理、规划/实施者的经验;(2)实施的障碍和促进因素。2021 年 9 月至 11 月期间,澳大利亚新南威尔士州的两家 RACH 招募了工作人员。采用半结构化访谈和主题数据分析。对 15 名参与者(7 名卫生专业人员[包括一名护士、两名临床教育工作者、三名工作场所培训师、一名临床经理/护士]、3 名护理人员和 5 名经理)进行了采访。大多数 RACH 参与者都认为 QEoLC 项目提高了他们对 PC 的认识,并使他们有信心和技能来公开讨论死亡。参与者认为,QEoLC 项目的各个组成部分对居民有以下好处:更适当的药物使用、及时开始疼痛管理以及与家属讨论临终护理偏好。实施的主要促进因素包括:拥护者的角色、指导委员会的作用、定期召开临床会议讨论有风险的居民以及指导。实施障碍包括:员工高流动率、COVID-19 大流行、时间限制、感知到缺乏执行赞助、缺乏实际支持和系统相关障碍。研究结果强调了需要强有力的领导力、支持性的组织文化以及对实施提高临终关怀质量的过程的承诺。此外,结果突出了需要与 RACH 共同设计干预措施、提供专门的员工/资源来支持实施,以及将项目工具与现有系统集成以实现有效的实施结果。