scholarly journals How Triage Nurses Use Discretion: a Literature Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Emil Fagernes Johannessen

Discretion is quintessential for professional work. This review aims to understand how nurses use discretion when they perform urgency assessments in emergency departments with formalised triage systems—systems that are intended to reduce nurses’ use of discretion. Because little research has dealt explicitly with this topic, this review addresses the discretionary aspects of triage by reinterpreting qualitative studies of how triage nurses perform urgency assessments. The review shows (a) how inexhaustive guidelines and a hectic work environment are factors that necessitate nurses’ use of discretion and (b) how nurses reason within this discretionary space by relying on their experience and intuition, judging patients according to criteria such as appropriateness and believability, and creating urgency ratings together with their patients. The review also offers a synthesis of the findings’ discretionary aspects and suggests a new interactionist dimension of discretion.Keywords: Triage, discretion, emergency department, meta-ethnography, review, decision-making

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 353-362
Author(s):  
Melissa Mahabeer ◽  
Patsy Govender

This aim of this study was to determine the biographical influences on employee involvement and work team effectiveness. Data for the study was collected using a questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. A sample of 150 employees was drawn using the stratified random sampling. Significant differences were found with the participative decision-making sub-dimension of employee involvement and length in service. Significant differences were found with both participative decision-making and job satisfaction, and gender. No significant differences surfaced with work team effectiveness and the biographical profiles. The literature review is followed by the results of the study. The study provides a guide for organizations to rethink and find ways to reach a solution building work environment


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 45-46
Author(s):  
Lotte Groth Jensen ◽  
Kathrine Carstensen

Introduction:There are many approaches to synthesis of qualitative studies. The GRADE-CERQual approach (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) provides a transparent method for assessing the confidence of evidence from reviews of qualitative research. This presentation aims at giving examples of applying CERQual, presenting and discussing its strengths and limitations.Methods:This presentation draws on practical experiences with the conduction of three qualitative systematic reviews using the CERQual approach. The reviews differ in aim and field of research.Results:The three CERQual reviews to be discussed in this presentation are: (i) Emergency departments and mental health patients - Purpose: Uncovering knowledge in a project on merging emergency departments to include both somatic and psychiatric patients. (ii) Parental responses to severe or lethal prenatal diagnosis – Purpose: Providing physicians with knowledge on a patient group from their daily clinical practice. (iii) Patients' experiences with home mechanical ventilation – Purpose: Disseminating important knowledge from a national project to an international audience.CERQual strengths: •Presents complex and large amount of knowledge in a clear way•Pools knowledge from different studies into common outcome measures across studies•Presents an assessment of the quality and strength of outcome measures•The clear presentation makes it useful in decision making.CERQual weaknesses: •Time consuming to conduct the reviews•Simplification of qualitative research, missing out on context and nuances.Conclusions:CERQual represents a useful tool to facilitate the use of qualitative evidence in clinical and political decision making. CERQual is time-consuming to learn, but a useful tool to apply when learned. CERQual may encourage more uniform reporting of qualitative research, including assessment of confidence in findings. This may increase the impact of systematic reviews of qualitative studies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Barna ◽  
Jean O'Donnell ◽  
Marnie Oakley

Opioid analgesics, when taken as prescribed, are effective therapeutic options that provide pain relief for moderate to severe pain. The use of opioids in the treatment of pain has been increasing in the U.S. at an alarming rate, possibly contributing to the simultaneous rise in opioid abuse. Emergency departments play a major role in managing patients who present in pain, with approximately 10% of all opioid analgesic prescriptions written in hospital emergency departments. It is estimated that dental pain patients represent between 0.3-4% of the overall patient emergency department workload. Yet, the literature suggests that many of these physicians may not have sufficient training in handling dentofacial emergencies. The goal of this study was to systematically review the available literature on the topics of: 1) emergency department physicians’ training related to treating dental pain patients, and 2) the frequency in which they prescribe opioid medications to these patients. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted among publications from 1985-2014 in the databases PubMed, Ovid, and Science Citation Index. The following search terms were used in this systematic literature review in order to identify the available literature of interest: “opioid and dental and emergency departments,” “dental pain and drug abuse,” “ER physicians and dental pain,” “ER physicians and drug abuse,” and “dental pain and emergency departments.” Publications in any language or country were considered, as well as editorials and commentaries. Findings: A total of 769 publications were identified. Seventeen publications met the criteria for inclusion. Eight studies commented on the emergency department physicians’ perceived “lack of training” in handling dentofacial emergencies and found that the majority of this group did not feel comfortable in managing dental patients. Nine studies assessed the frequency in which physicians prescribe pain medications to dental patients. Within these 9 studies, 5 specifically reported that between 29.6% and 81% of dental patients treated, received an “opioid” or a “narcotic” upon discharge. The remaining 4 studies in this group instead used non-specific terms that included “prescription medications,” “analgesics,” “pain medicine,” and “pharmacotherapy” to describe their findings and did not particularly report opioid prescribing trends. Of those publications rejected, 9 addressed the topic of dental pain patients presenting to non-dental providers, but did not include data that met the criteria related to emergency department prescribing frequency or physician training. Conclusions: This review of the literature suggests that emergency department physicians’ training level in treating dentofacial pain is less than ideal. It also confirms that individuals presenting to emergency departments with dental pain are a subset of the population of patients who are prescribed opioids as an analgesic. Coupling these results with the increased use of opioids in this country, dentists are in a key position to collaborate with emergency department physicians to help positively affect change. To further justify this approach, research agendas must carefully monitor prescribing patterns for dentofacial pain in the emergency department that are specific to opioid use, carefully excluding other non-narcotic analgesics. Should comparable outcomes of data related to the same topic in other non-dental settings exist, additional areas in medicine that may benefit from this partnership may also be identified. Moving forward, this interprofessional team approach may include a presence in medical school and residency program curricula so that alternative treatment options for addressing dental pain patients can be presented that consider the increased prescribing trends of opioids.


CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 600-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Collier ◽  
Gregory Marton ◽  
Shannon Chun ◽  
Cheri Nijssen-Jordan ◽  
Susan A. Bartels ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectivesThe objective of the CAEP Global Emergency Medicine (EM) panel was to identify successes, challenges, and barriers to engaging in global health in Canadian academic emergency departments, formulate recommendations for increasing engagement of faculty, and guide departments in developing a Global EM program.MethodsA panel of academic Global EM practitioners and residents met regularly via teleconference in the year leading up to the CAEP 2018 Academic Symposium. Recommendations were drafted based on a literature review, three mixed methods surveys (CAEP general members, Canadian Global EM practitioners, and Canadian academic emergency department leaders), and panel members’ experience. Recommendations were presented at the CAEP 2018 Academic Symposium in Calgary and further refined based on feedback from the Academic Section.ResultsA total of nine recommendations are presented here. Seven of these are directed towards Canadian academic departments and divisions and intend to increase their engagement in Global EM by recognizing it as an integral part of the practice of emergency medicine, deliberately incorporating it into strategic plans, identifying local leaders, providing tangible supports (i.e., research, administration or financial support, shift flexibility), mitigating barriers, encouraging collaboration, and promoting academic deliverables. The final two recommendations pertain to CAEP increasing its own engagement and support of Global EM.ConclusionsThese recommendations serve as guidance for Canadian academic emergency departments and divisions to increase their engagement in Global EM.


2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco S. Lozano Sánchez ◽  
Jesus García-Alonso ◽  
José A. Torres ◽  
Luis Velasco ◽  
Roberto Salvador ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avishek Choudhury

UNSTRUCTURED Objective: The potential benefits of artificial intelligence based decision support system (AI-DSS) from a theoretical perspective are well documented and perceived by researchers but there is a lack of evidence showing its influence on routine clinical practice and how its perceived by care providers. Since the effectiveness of AI systems depends on data quality, implementation, and interpretation. The purpose of this literature review is to analyze the effectiveness of AI-DSS in clinical setting and understand its influence on clinician’s decision making outcome. Materials and Methods: This review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses reporting guidelines. Literature will be identified using a multi-database search strategy developed in consultation with a librarian. The proposed screening process consists of a title and abstract scan, followed by a full-text review by two reviewers to determine the eligibility of articles. Studies outlining application of AI based decision support system in a clinical setting and its impact on clinician’s decision making, will be included. A tabular synthesis of the general study details will be provided, as well as a narrative synthesis of the extracted data, organised into themes. Studies solely reporting AI accuracy an but not implemented in a clinical setting to measure its influence on clinical decision making were excluded from further review. Results: We identified 8 eligible studies that implemented AI-DSS in a clinical setting to facilitate decisions concerning prostate cancer, post traumatic stress disorder, cardiac ailment, back pain, and others. Five (62.50%) out of 8 studies reported positive outcome of AI-DSS. Conclusion: The systematic review indicated that AI-enabled decision support systems, when implemented in a clinical setting and used by clinicians might not ensure enhanced decision making. However, there are very limited studies to confirm the claim that AI based decision support system can uplift clinicians decision making abilities.


2017 ◽  
Vol 0 (2.81) ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
G.G. Roshchin ◽  
V.Yu. Kuzmіn ◽  
E.D. Moroz ◽  
M.D. Blyznjuk ◽  
V.O. Kryliuk ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document