The Journal of surgical research · 2025
Perioperative Interprofessional Communication Between Urology and Palliative Care: A Qualitative Analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gunturi Alekhya, Maheta Bhagvat J, Bodd Monica, Bergman Jonathan, Leppert John T, Lorenz Karl A, Raspi Isabella G, Singh Nainwant K, Giannitrapani Karleen F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Good-quality care for patients with a serious illness often requires interdisciplinary expertise. In the urologic perioperative period, this can include urologists and Palliative Care (PC). Our objective is to understand how to improve perioperative coordination between urologists and PC providers in the context of urologic serious illness.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We interviewed 38 providers: urologists (13), PC physicians (12), and clinical team members (13) in phase I of this study. From these interviews, there were 96 examples of interdisciplinary communication that were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with dual review in phase II of this study.
RESULTS: Two key themes emerged regarding communication between urology and PC teams. First, effective collaboration is often hindered by logistical challenges, such as surgeons' limited availability due to time spent in surgery and difficulties coordinating in-person meetings. Fostering bidirectional, timely communication through asynchronous communication and structured meetings improves alignment within the clinical team before patient interactions. Second, hierarchical structures within medical teams can discourage open dialogue, with nonsurgeons sometimes feeling hesitant to share input. Promoting mutual respect is essential to creating a more balanced and collaborative environment. Together, these themes highlight the need for systemic changes that support accessibility, respect, and communication in interdisciplinary care.
CONCLUSIONS: Future directions include implementing an evidence-based intervention with structures and processes to improve interdisciplinary collaboration among urologists and PC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We interviewed 38 providers: urologists (13), PC physicians (12), and clinical team members (13) in phase I of this study. From these interviews, there were 96 examples of interdisciplinary communication that were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with dual review in phase II of this study.
RESULTS: Two key themes emerged regarding communication between urology and PC teams. First, effective collaboration is often hindered by logistical challenges, such as surgeons' limited availability due to time spent in surgery and difficulties coordinating in-person meetings. Fostering bidirectional, timely communication through asynchronous communication and structured meetings improves alignment within the clinical team before patient interactions. Second, hierarchical structures within medical teams can discourage open dialogue, with nonsurgeons sometimes feeling hesitant to share input. Promoting mutual respect is essential to creating a more balanced and collaborative environment. Together, these themes highlight the need for systemic changes that support accessibility, respect, and communication in interdisciplinary care.
CONCLUSIONS: Future directions include implementing an evidence-based intervention with structures and processes to improve interdisciplinary collaboration among urologists and PC.