Conectar
Basing practice on evidence is a widely acknowledged requirement for nursing, but shortcomings still exist. An increased understanding of the actualization of evidence-based nursing (EBN) across different nursing contexts is needed to develop better support for EBN and promote uniform high-quality nursing.
The aim of this study was to compare the actualization of EBN in different organizational contexts in Finland.
Data for this survey were collected in 2021. The actualization of EBN in primary, specialized, and social care organizations was evaluated with the Actualization of Evidence-Based Nursing instrument, nurses' version, which focuses on individual and organizational-level EBN support structures. Differences between (1) specialized and primary healthcare, and (2) different nursing practice settings were tested with Welch's two sample t-test, the Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test.
Based on nurse (n = 1020) evaluations, those working in specialized healthcare hold more positive attitudes toward EBN (p = .021) and evaluated their organization's methods for monitoring and evaluating nursing practices (p = .004) more positively than those working in primary healthcare. Regarding different nursing practice settings (n = 1241), the most positive results were observed within preventive healthcare where nurses evaluated their attitudes toward EBN, EBN competence, and personal evidence-based practices more positively compared to other nursing practice settings. The results were parallel regarding several organizational structures for EBN. Positive results were also observed within somatic units at university hospitals, and most negative results were within institutional care settings, health centers, and home care settings.
There is a need for targeted support to strengthen EBN across different organizational contexts, with special attention to those contexts where nursing professionals with lower education levels work. Future research needs to focus on further analyzing the organizational differences and what can be learned, especially from preventive healthcare but also somatic units at university hospitals.
Menopausal women often complain of a range of physical and psychological symptoms known as menopausal syndrome. These symptoms are associated with fluctuating hormone levels, sleep disturbances, and mood swings.
This study aimed to examine the efficacy of a program-based cognitive behavioral group therapy (CBT) for insomnia and depression among women experiencing menopause.
A randomized controlled trial of 88 women experiencing menopause was conducted in Egypt from June to September 2022 in outpatient clinics at Mansoura University Hospitals in Egypt. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group (45 women) and an intervention group (43 women). The intervention group received 7 weeks of CBT sessions. Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Beck Depression Inventory 2nd Edition (BDI-II) were administered before and after the intervention.
In the intervention group, there was a significant difference in scores of the subdomains of PSQI, including sleep efficiency, daytime dysfunction, subjective sleep quality, and sleep disturbance (t = 8.911, 11.77, 7.638, and 11.054, respectively), while no significant difference in domains of using sleep medication, sleep duration, and sleep latency. Significant improvements were observed between pre-and-post-intervention in the intervention group for the total scores of PSQI, ISI, and BDII-II (t = 12.711, 16.272, and 12.384, respectively), indicating a large effect size for the three studied variables (r = .81, .87, .8, respectively).
This study demonstrated the efficacy of group CBT for lowering insomnia and depression in women experiencing menopause. Thus, results indicated the need of considering prompt and appropriate interventions such as CBT as a safe treatment option to prevent the aggravation of sleep and emotional problems for menopausal women.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05920460.
Outcomes associated with rapid response teams (RRTs) are inconsistent. This may be due to underlying facilitators and barriers to RRT activation that are affected by team leaders and health systems.
The aim of this study was to synthesize the published research about facilitators and barriers to nurse-led RRT activation in the United States (U.S.).
A systematic review was conducted. Four databases were searched from January 2000 to June 2023 for peer-reviewed quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies reporting facilitators and barriers to RRT activation. Studies conducted outside the U.S. or with physician-led teams were excluded.
Twenty-five studies met criteria representing 240,140 participants that included clinicians and hospitalized adults. Three domains of facilitators and barriers to RRT activation were identified: (1) hospital infrastructure, (2) clinician culture, and (3) nurses' beliefs, attributes, and knowledge. Categories were identified within each domain. The categories of perceived benefits and positive beliefs about RRTs, knowing when to activate the RRT, and hospital-wide policies and practices most facilitated activation, whereas the categories of negative perceptions and concerns about RRTs and uncertainties surrounding RRT activation were the dominant barriers.
Facilitators and barriers to RRT activation were interrelated. Some facilitators like hospital leader and physician support of RRTs became barriers when absent. Intradisciplinary communication and collaboration between nurses can positively and negatively impact RRT activation. The expertise of RRT nurses should be further studied.
FreshRSS 