Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2026
Bridging a practice gap in patient education on end-of-life defibrillator management: A quality improvement initiative.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Thoppil Deepa, Prasun Marilyn A, Xia Yinglin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: When patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) near the end-of-life (EOL), shock therapy from the device can cause unnecessary suffering. Professional guidelines recommend timely discussions on the shock deactivation option with ICD recipients.
LOCAL PROBLEM: At the project site, many older patients with serious illnesses have shock therapy active in their ICDs. This project aimed to improve ICD recipients' knowledge, attitudes, and decision making regarding EOL device management options by providing guideline-recommended patient education.
METHODS: Single-site, quality improvement project employing pre/post survey design among ICD recipients in the outpatient setting. The Experiences, Attitudes, and Knowledge of End-of-Life Issues in ICD Questionnaire was used for the survey.
INTERVENTIONS: The key intervention was a structured patient education session (SPES) in the device clinic led by a cardiac electrophysiology nurse practitioner.
RESULTS: Of the 90 participants, 94.4% were ≥60 years old and 95.6% were males. After the SPES, the responses to all ICD knowledge items showed significant positive differences based on the McNemar test significance ( p ≤ .001). Responses to five attitude items on EOL ICD discussions/actions also showed significant positive changes after the education with McNemar Test significance <.05.
CONCLUSION: A SPES in the device clinic improved patients' ICD knowledge and attitude toward shock deactivation at EOL. Further work is required to assess the long-term impacts.
LOCAL PROBLEM: At the project site, many older patients with serious illnesses have shock therapy active in their ICDs. This project aimed to improve ICD recipients' knowledge, attitudes, and decision making regarding EOL device management options by providing guideline-recommended patient education.
METHODS: Single-site, quality improvement project employing pre/post survey design among ICD recipients in the outpatient setting. The Experiences, Attitudes, and Knowledge of End-of-Life Issues in ICD Questionnaire was used for the survey.
INTERVENTIONS: The key intervention was a structured patient education session (SPES) in the device clinic led by a cardiac electrophysiology nurse practitioner.
RESULTS: Of the 90 participants, 94.4% were ≥60 years old and 95.6% were males. After the SPES, the responses to all ICD knowledge items showed significant positive differences based on the McNemar test significance ( p ≤ .001). Responses to five attitude items on EOL ICD discussions/actions also showed significant positive changes after the education with McNemar Test significance <.05.
CONCLUSION: A SPES in the device clinic improved patients' ICD knowledge and attitude toward shock deactivation at EOL. Further work is required to assess the long-term impacts.