背景:国际指南推荐了在特定癌症主题中进行更好的护理处理的途径,比如化疗毒性,报道的毒性粘附性低,不良事件(AE)频率随之增加,较差的QoL结果,增加医疗服务的使用直到死亡。不可预测性,推迟的报告,以及无法获得医疗保健服务可能会通过包括患者的安全性而损害毒性相关的影响。在这种情况下,更周到的护理干预可以改善患者的预后并降低医疗服务成本,分别。本范围审查旨在描述和综合肿瘤患者的科学护理护理证据评估。
方法:PubMed,Embase,护理和联合健康数据库,和英国护理是检查的数据库。使用和与布尔算子相关的关键词是评估,care,护理,免疫紊乱,肿瘤学,和病人。考虑的研究文章在2013年至2023年之间发表。所有系统过程均根据PRISMA程序进行,以达到本范围审查中考虑的所有手稿。
结果:Embase数据库共显示25篇文章,PubMed显示77条,护理与联合健康数据库显示74条,英国护理数据库显示252条记录。然后,在考虑纳入标准对每个数据库进行第一次修订后,选择上述标题和摘要,删除了336条记录,还有92项研究。其中,在验证摘要后,排除了65份手稿。最后,共7篇文章被仔细分析和选择用于本次范围审查.具体来说,2篇文章属于英国护理数据库,3篇文章属于Embase,1个到护理和相关健康数据库,一个与PubMed相关。
结论:肿瘤护理应考虑几个方面,如治疗相关的毒性及其相关的发病率和死亡率,生活质量不断恶化,并增加医疗保健组织的职责或对主要症状和体征的认可,这些症状和体征可能预示着很少的疾病和最坏的临床状况,也是。因此,仔细的监测可能有助于及时识别治疗效果并随后进行早期管理.
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend a pathway for preferable nursing handling in a specific cancer topic, like chemotherapy toxicity, low adhesion in toxicity reported with a consequential increase in adverse events (AEs) frequency, poorer QoL outcomes, and increased use of healthcare service until death. Unpredictability, postponed reports, and incapability to access healthcare services can compromise toxicity-related effects by including patients\' safety. In this scenario, a more attentive nursing intervention can improve patients\' outcomes and decrease costs for healthcare services, respectively. The present scoping review aims to describe and synthesize scientific care nursing evidence assessment in oncology patients.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Nursing & Allied Health Database, and British Nursing were the databases examined. Keywords used and associated with Boolean operators were assessment, care, nursing, immune disorder, oncology, and patient. Research articles considered were published between 2013-2023. All systematic processes were performed according to the PRISMA procedure in order to reach all manuscripts considered in the present scoping review.
RESULTS: The Embase database showed a total of 25 articles, PubMed displayed 77, the Nursing & Allied Health Database evidenced a total of 74, and the British Nursing database showed 252 records. Then, after a first revision in each database by considering the inclusion criteria, the abovementioned titles and abstracts were selected and, 336 records were removed, and 92 studies remained. Of these, 65 manuscripts were excluded after verifying abstracts. Finally, a total of 7 articles were carefully analysed and selected for this scoping review. Specifically, 2 articles belonged to the British Nursing Database, 3 articles belonged to Embase, 1 to the Nursing & Allied Health Database and one related to PubMed.
CONCLUSIONS: Oncology nursing should consider several aspects, such as therapy-related toxicity and its related morbidity and mortality, worsening levels of quality of life, and increasing duty by the healthcare organization or endorsements for the principal symptoms and signs which may anticipate few diseases and worst clinical conditions, too. Therefore, careful monitoring may allow prompt recognition and subsequent earlier management in the treatment efficacy.