Premium
To reduce technology prior discharge from intensive care – important but difficult? A grounded theory
Author(s) -
Häggström Marie,
Asplund Kenneth,
Kristiansen Lisbeth
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of caring sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.678
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1471-6712
pISSN - 0283-9318
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01063.x
Subject(s) - ambiguity , grounded theory , intensive care unit , intensive care , nursing , medicine , participant observation , control (management) , medical emergency , psychology , qualitative research , intensive care medicine , computer science , sociology , anthropology , programming language , social science , artificial intelligence
Aim: The aim of this study was to provide a deeper understanding of the experience of intensive care staff regarding the reduction in the use of medical technology prior to patients’ transfer from the ICU. Background: The goal of ICU transitional care, provided for intensive care patients before, during and after the transfer from the ICU to another care unit, is to ensure minimal disruption and optimal continuity of care for the patient. To smooth this transition, there is a need to prepare for a less technological environment and therefore also a need for a gradual reduction in the use of monitoring equipment. Method: Group interviews and individual interviews, together with participant observations, were conducted with ICU staff in two hospitals in Sweden. The data were analysed using classic grounded theory. Results: The main concern was the ICU staff’s ambiguity regarding whether and how to reduce the use of medical technology devices. Insecurity about weaning patients from medical equipment combined with a lack of standardized routines made it difficult for staff to reduce the technical support. The core category describes how the ambiguity was solved primarily by ‘ prioritizing control’ . However, this often caused the ICU staff to use advanced technology while the patients were in the ICU until the ward staff arrived, even if this should have been handled otherwise. Why and how the ICU staff used the strategy of ‘ prioritizing control’ is further explained in the categories ‘ being affected by cultural/contextual aspects’, ‘searching for guidance and a shared understanding’ and ‘ weighing advantages with more v s less technology’. Conclusion: It is important to consider ICU staff ambiguity concerning the reduction in technology and to establish strategies for a safe and structured transitional phase with step‐down procedures in which technology and monitoring is gradually reduced prior to transfer from ICU.