Clinician Perceptions of the Impact of a Shock Team Approach in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock : A Qualitative Study
Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
INTRODUCTION: Designated cross-specialty shock teams have been proposed as a mechanism to manage the complexity of decision-making and facilitate collaborative, patient-centred care-planning in cardiogenic shock. Observational data support the notion that shock protocols and teams may improve survival, but there is an absence of data interrogating how clinicians engage with and value the shock team paradigm. This study sought to explore clinician perceptions of the value of the shock call system on decision making and the management of CGS.
MATERIALS & METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. A focus group, semi-structured interview was conducted with twelve cross-specialty members of a shock team at a single tertiary cardiac centre in the UK. The focus group was audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed to capture and describe the clinicians' experience and perceptions of shock team discussions.
RESULTS: Eight cardiac intensivists, two heart failure cardiologists, one cardiothoracic surgeon and one interventional cardiologist participated in the focus group. Four key themes were identified from the discussions: supportive decision making; team communication; governance and learning; and future directions.
CONCLUSION: This study supports the notion that cross-specialty, real-time patient discussion may provide added value beyond protocolised decision making and account for the complexities of managing patients in a field where definitive, high-quality evidence to guide practice is currently limited.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:22 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions - 22(2021) vom: 31. Jan., Seite 78-83 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Gibbs, Deanna [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Cardiogenic shock |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 18.08.2021 Date Revised 18.08.2021 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.carrev.2020.06.011 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM311695094 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM311695094 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225142812.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.06.011 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1038.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM311695094 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)32591309 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S1553-8389(20)30360-2 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gibbs, Deanna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Clinician Perceptions of the Impact of a Shock Team Approach in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock |b A Qualitative Study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 18.08.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 18.08.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a INTRODUCTION: Designated cross-specialty shock teams have been proposed as a mechanism to manage the complexity of decision-making and facilitate collaborative, patient-centred care-planning in cardiogenic shock. Observational data support the notion that shock protocols and teams may improve survival, but there is an absence of data interrogating how clinicians engage with and value the shock team paradigm. This study sought to explore clinician perceptions of the value of the shock call system on decision making and the management of CGS | ||
| 520 | |a MATERIALS & METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. A focus group, semi-structured interview was conducted with twelve cross-specialty members of a shock team at a single tertiary cardiac centre in the UK. The focus group was audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed to capture and describe the clinicians' experience and perceptions of shock team discussions | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Eight cardiac intensivists, two heart failure cardiologists, one cardiothoracic surgeon and one interventional cardiologist participated in the focus group. Four key themes were identified from the discussions: supportive decision making; team communication; governance and learning; and future directions | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: This study supports the notion that cross-specialty, real-time patient discussion may provide added value beyond protocolised decision making and account for the complexities of managing patients in a field where definitive, high-quality evidence to guide practice is currently limited | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cardiogenic shock | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mechanical circulatory support | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Qualitative | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Shock teams | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Eusebio, Cidalia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sanders, Julie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rosner, Carolyn |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tehrani, Behnam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Truesdell, Alex G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a O'Brien, Ben |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Finney, Simon J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Proudfoot, Alastair G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions |d 2005 |g 22(2021) vom: 31. Jan., Seite 78-83 |w (DE-627)NLM158711297 |x 1878-0938 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:22 |g year:2021 |g day:31 |g month:01 |g pages:78-83 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2020.06.011 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 22 |j 2021 |b 31 |c 01 |h 78-83 | ||