Conectar
To synthesise evidence from the literature on hospital nurses' perceived challenges and opportunities in the care of people with dementia.
People with dementia often have longer lengths of hospital stay and poorer health outcomes compared to those without dementia. Nurses play a pivotal role in the care of people with dementia. However, there is a scarcity of systematic reviews that synthesise the challenges and opportunities they perceive.
A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted with a database search covering Ageline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Emcare, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science in April 2022. In total, 27 articles that met the selection criteria were critically reviewed and included in this systematic review. Data from the selected articles were extracted and synthesised using a convergent segregated approach.
Three main themes and eight subthemes were identified. Theme 1 described nurse-related factors consisting of the lack of capability in dementia care, experiencing multiple sources of stress and opportunities for nurses to improve dementia care. Theme 2 revealed people living with dementia-related factors including complex care needs and the need to engage family carers in care. Theme 3 explained organisation-related factors comprising the lack of organisational support for nurses and people with dementia and opportunities for quality dementia care.
Hospital nurses experience multidimensional challenges in the care of people with dementia. Opportunities to overcome those challenges include organisational support for nurses to develop dementia care capability, reduce their stress and partner with the family caregivers.
Hospitals will need to build an enabling environment for nurses to develop their capabilities in the care of people with dementia. Further research in empowering nurses and facilitating quality dementia care in acute care hospitals is needed.
The review followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist.
No.
To investigate whether chronic diseases are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and explore factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in patients with chronic diseases.
Vaccine hesitancy has been acknowledged as one of the greatest hazards to public health. However, little information is available about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases who may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe disease or death.
From 6 to 9 August 2021, we performed an internet-based cross-sectional survey with 22,954 participants (14.78% participants with chronic diseases). Propensity score matching with 1:1 nearest neighbourhood was used to reduce confounding factors between patients with chronic diseases and the general population. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, the factors impacting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy were identified among patients with chronic diseases.
Both before and after propensity score matching, patients with chronic diseases had higher COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy than the general population. In addition, self-reported poor health, multiple chronic diseases, lower sociodemographic backgrounds and lower trust in nurses and doctors were associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among patients with chronic diseases.
Patients with chronic diseases were more hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine. Nurses should focus on patients with chronic diseases with poor health conditions, low socioeconomic backgrounds and low trust in the healthcare system.
Clinical nurses are recommended to not only pay more attention to the health status and sociodemographic characteristics of patients with chronic diseases but also build trust between nurses and patients by improving service levels and professional capabilities in clinical practice.
Patients or the public were not involved in setting the research question, the outcome measures, or the design or implementation of the study. However, all participants were invited to complete the digital informed consent and questionnaires.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to identify the factors related to cancer death anxiety based on available evidence.
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
Seven databases were searched to identify studies on the relationships of cancer death anxiety with demographic characteristics, disease factors and psychosocial factors from inception to May 2023. The Agency for Medical Research and Quality (AHRQ) scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. After two researchers independently completed the literature search, data extraction and quality evaluation, meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan5.3 and Stata 17.0 software.
In total, 52 studies were included in this review. The results revealed that there were positive correlations of death anxiety with female sex, the symptom burden, anxiety levels, depression levels, fear of recurrence, attachment avoidance, psychological distress, resignation and confrontation coping. Death anxiety was negatively correlated with age, education level, ability to perform daily activities, self-esteem, spiritual well-being, sense of meaning in life, resilience, quality of life, social support and religious beliefs.
Our results can inform the design of interventions to address death anxiety and improve the overall quality of life of cancer patients. Healthcare professionals should promptly identify and focus on death anxiety in high-risk populations of cancer patients.
Cancer patients commonly experience death anxiety, and this anxiety has a nonnegligible impact on patients' mental health and overall quality of life. This study can inform the development of interventions by clinical healthcare professionals.
This was a meta-analysis based on data from previous studies.
To evaluate the predictive validity and reliability of the Waterlow scale in critically adult hospitalised patients.
A multi-centre cohort study.
This study was conducted in 72 intensive care units (ICUs) in 38 tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province, China. All adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 24 h without pressure injury (PI) on admission were screened by the Waterlow scale on admission, during ICU stay and ICU discharge from April 2021 to February 2023. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine a potential cut-off value for critical adult hospitalised patients. Cut-off values were then determined using Youden's index, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated based on these cut-off values. Test–retest reliability was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability.
A total of 5874 critical patients on admission were included, and 5125 of them were assessed regularly. The area under curve (AUC) was 0.623 (95% CI, 0.574–0.690), with a cut-off score of 19 showing the best balance among sensitivity of 62.7%, specificity of 57.4%, positive predictive value of 2.07% and negative predictive value of 99.08%. The test–retest reliability between the first assessment and the regular assessment was 0.447.
The Waterlow scale shows insufficient predictive validity and reliability in discriminating critical adults at risk of PI development. To further modify the items of the Waterlow scale, exploring specific risk factors for PI in the ICU and clarifying their impact degree was necessary. Risk predictive models or better tools are inevitable in the future.
Patients or family members supported nurses with PI risk assessment, skin examination and other activities during the inquiry.
To identify the factors influencing the intent to provide care among nurses involved in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) care.
COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan, China, in 2019. In 2020, the World Health Organisation declared it a pandemic, leading to 5,827,104 deaths and 421,203,495 confirmed cases as of 19 February 2022. The high transmissibility of COVID-19 has prolonged the pandemic for over 2 years, resulting in deleterious effects on nurses' physical and mental health. The fear of infection and isolation may lead to negative experiences and perceptions among COVID-19 frontline nurses, which may ultimately degrade the quality of patient care. Thus, it is essential to identify factors influencing of nurses' intent to provide care.
Cross-sectional study.
Data were collected from 169 nurses involved in direct COVID-19 care at a hospital designated for infectious disease care in Korea from August to September 2021 using an online questionnaire. STROBE checklist was followed.
Nurses' intent to provide care significantly differed based on whether they lived with parents and had adequate availability of personal protection equipment. The correlation analysis indicated that the intent to provide care was significantly positively correlated with normative beliefs, control beliefs, attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Perceived behavioural control, control beliefs and attitude towards the behaviour were significant factors influencing nurses' intent to provide COVID-19 care.
This study showed that nurses perceived behavioural control and positive behaviour towards providing COVID-19 care fundamentally influenced their intent to provide care.
In clinical practice, the safety and rights of individual nurses who participated in COVID-19-related patient care are promoted, and ultimately, the quality of patient care is improved. Furthermore, active support at the organisation and government level is needed to strengthen the capabilities necessary for nursing patients with infectious diseases.
To evaluate changes in compassion fatigue (CF), burnout (BO), compassion satisfaction (CS) and fear of COVID-19 among Spanish nurses by comparing two assessment points: before and after the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.
The COVID-19 pandemic has produced a great impact in healthcare worker's professional quality of life, especially among nurses. CF, BO and fear of COVID-19 decisively affect the care provided by nurses and put them at risk for mental health problems, so longitudinal studies are essential.
A repeated cross-sectional design was carried out with a time-lapse of 12 months.
A total of 439 registered nurses in December 2020 and 410 in December 2021 participated in this study through an online survey. Data were collected using the Professional Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. Occupational and sociodemographic variables were also analysed. This article adheres to the STROBE guidelines for the reporting of observational studies.
The fear of COVID-19 has not been reduced among nurses. The levels of BO remain stable and continue to be high in half of the professionals. CF has been reduced with a small effect size (d = 0.30), while CS has also decreased (d = 0.30). Positive correlations were found in both assessment points between fear of COVID-19 and BO (r = .44, p ≤ .001; r = .41, p ≤ .001) and also between fear of COVID and CF (r = .57, p ≤ .001; r = .50, p ≤ .001). Negative correlations between fear and CS were also found (r = − .16, p = .001; r = − .22, p ≤ .001).
Programmes to reduce fear of COVID-19, BO and CF are needed to improve mental health and to prevent psychological distress among nurses, as well as to increase CS and preserve the productivity and quality of nursing care.
The nurses collaborated by participating in the present study anonymously and disinterestedly.
To compare anaesthesia-related outcomes between patients monitored by newly recruited nurse anaesthetists and those monitored by newly recruited anaesthesiologists.
This was a retrospective study.
We conducted a retrospective study that collected demographic information on newly recruited nurse anaesthetists and anaesthesiologists between 2017 and 2022 and recorded information on patients within 6 months of monitoring. Postoperative pain, emergency agitation, nausea, and vomiting were designated anaesthesia-related outcomes. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for covariates. The study adhered to the STROBE guidelines.
The study's statistical analysis included 4483 patients monitored by 22 newly recruited nurse anaesthetists and 4959 patients monitored by 23 newly recruited anaesthesiologists. Compared with patients monitored by newly trained anaesthesiologists, the patients monitored by nurse anaesthetists were younger (42.07 ± 20.00 vs. 47.39 ± 18.45 years, p < 0.001) and had a lower body mass index (23.56 ± 4.46 vs. 24.19 ± 4.25, p < 0.001). Patients monitored by anaesthesiologists had a greater proportion of women (61.62% vs. 59.25%, p < 0.001), a high proportion of ASA III and ASA IV (17.1% vs. 8.88%, p < 0.001), and a longer mean surgery duration (78.65 ± 59.01 vs. 70.70 ± 60.65 min, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching was used to adjust for covariates, no statistically significant differences were found in the prevalence of postoperative pain, emergency agitation, or postoperative nausea and vomiting between the two groups (p < 0.05).
Nurse anaesthetists monitoring alone during anaesthesia maintenance is feasible and safe. The two groups had no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative pain, emergency agitation, or postoperative nausea and vomiting.
The shortage of anaesthesiologists leads to heavy work burden and high incidence of occupational burnout among anaesthesiologists. The study found that it was safe for nurse anaesthetists to perform anaesthetic monitoring alone in the operating room under the supervision of the attending anaesthesiologist and did reduce the burden of anaesthesiologists’ work. The results of the current study contribute to the expansion of occupational categories for nurse anaesthetists in countries where anaesthesiologists are in short supply. It provides new ideas for hospital administrators and policy-makers to formulate medical and nursing service policies.
FreshRSS 