Suppr超能文献

探视限制对 ED 错误的影响。

The effect of visitation restrictions on ED error.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.

出版信息

Intern Emerg Med. 2024 Aug;19(5):1425-1430. doi: 10.1007/s11739-024-03537-3. Epub 2024 Feb 19.

Abstract

EDs restricted visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic on the assumption that the risks of disease spread outweighed the psychological benefits of liberal visitation. But data suggest that beyond providing emotional support, family and caregivers can clarify history, improve patient monitoring, and advocate for patients-actions that can improve quality of care. Our objective was to assess whether removing visitors from the bedside contributed to errors in emergency care. We reviewed a database of medical errors covering visits from 11/15/17 to 7/30/22 at an urban, tertiary-care, academic ED for five types of error amenable to visitor intervention: inadequate history gathering, inadequate monitoring, falls, giving a medication to which a patient is allergic, and inappropriate medication dosing. These records were reviewed by two investigators to determine the likelihood visitor presence could have prevented the error. For those errors judged susceptible to visitor intercession, the number in each category was compared for the period before and after strict restrictions took effect. Our review found 27/781 (3.5%) errors in the pre-pandemic period and 27/568 (4.8%) errors in the pandemic period fell into one of these five categories (p = 0.29). Visitors prevented harm from reaching the patient in three of 27 pre-pandemic errors (11.1%), compared to 0 out of 27 peri-pandemic errors (p = 0.23). On review by two attendings, 17/24 (70.8%) errors that reached the patient in the pre-pandemic period were judged amenable to visitor intervention, compared to 25/27 (92.6%) in the pandemic period (p = 0.09). There were no statistically significant differences in the categories of error between the two groups; monitoring errors came the closest: 1/17 (5.9%) pre-COVID errors amenable to visitor intervention in these categories were monitoring related, whereas 7/25 (28.0%) post-COVID errors were (p = 0.16). While this study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in error between lenient and restrictive visitation eras, we did find multiple cases in the pre-COVID era in which family presence prevented error, and qualitative review of post-COVID errors suggested many could have been prevented by family presence. Larger trials are needed to determine how frequent and consequential such errors are and how to balance the public health imperative of curbing disease spread with the harm caused by restricting visitation.

摘要

在 COVID-19 大流行期间,ED 将访客限制在病房外,假设疾病传播的风险超过了自由探视的心理益处。但数据表明,除了提供情感支持外,家人和护理人员还可以澄清病史、改善患者监测并为患者代言——这些行为可以提高护理质量。我们的目的是评估将访客从床边移除是否会导致急诊护理失误。我们回顾了一个城市三级保健学术急诊室 11/15/17 至 7/30/22 期间的医疗错误数据库,其中包括五种类型的访客干预可纠正的错误:病史采集不充分、监测不充分、跌倒、给患者过敏的药物以及药物剂量不当。两名调查员审查了这些记录,以确定访客在场是否可以防止发生错误。对于那些被判断为易受访客干预的错误,比较了严格限制措施生效前后每个类别的数量。我们的审查发现,在大流行前时期有 27/781(3.5%)的错误,而在大流行期间有 27/568(4.8%)的错误属于这五个类别之一(p=0.29)。在 27 例大流行前错误中,有 3 例(11.1%)访客阻止了伤害到达患者,而在 27 例大流行期间错误中没有一例(p=0.23)。在两位主治医生审查后,有 17/24(70.8%)在大流行前到达患者的错误被判断为易受访客干预,而在大流行期间有 25/27(92.6%)(p=0.09)。两组之间在错误类别上没有统计学上的显著差异;监测错误最为接近:在这些类别中,有 1/17(5.9%)大流行前可由访客干预的错误与监测相关,而在大流行后有 7/25(28.0%)的错误与监测相关(p=0.16)。虽然这项研究没有显示宽松探视和限制探视时期的错误有统计学上的显著差异,但我们确实发现,在大流行前时期有多个案例,家庭的存在防止了错误,对大流行后错误的定性审查表明,许多错误本来可以通过家庭的存在来预防。需要更大规模的试验来确定这种错误的频率和后果,以及如何平衡遏制疾病传播的公共卫生必要性与限制探视造成的伤害。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验