Conectar
To explore the impact of Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) education on career advancement, job satisfaction, leadership competencies and contributions to healthcare systems.
The study utilised a scoping review methodology based on Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework.
The search strategy was developed with an academic librarian to ensure thoroughness and relevance. Seven databases were searched using MesH terms. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed studies examining DNP education's influence on career advancement, job satisfaction and leadership. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and themes.
Studies were selected based on their focus on DNP-prepared nurses, nursing faculty or advanced practice nursing students in healthcare or academic settings, published between 2004 and 2024.
Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting DNP education's role in fostering leadership, professional development and evidence-based practice. Thematic analysis revealed the benefits of being a DNP graduate include contribution to professional development, contribution to leadership and contribution to the practice environment. The challenges to DNP graduates include underrecognition of competencies, high educational costs and limited academic opportunities that were also identified.
DNP education contributes to individual and professional growth, leadership development and healthcare system improvements. However, barriers such as financial constraints and inadequate recognition of DNP competencies must be addressed to maximise the impact of this educational model.
DNP education empowers nurses to lead healthcare innovations, enhance patient care quality and reduce disparities in health outcomes. Strengthening financial and systemic support for DNP graduates is essential for sustaining these contributions.
DNP education is a transformative force in nursing, offering significant opportunities for leadership development and healthcare advancements. Aligning DNP programmes with evolving global healthcare challenges can further strengthen their impact on the profession and patient care.
PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed.
To investigate the impact of nurses' occupational fatigue and exhaustion levels on their self-efficacy in managing pressure injuries. A descriptive cross-sectional study. The data were collected from 682 nurses employed at three institutions from May 15 to July 31, 2023. Occupational fatigue and exhaustion were assessed using the OFER scale, while self-efficacy in pressure injury (PI) management was evaluated using the PUM-SES. Correlation and multiple linear regression methods were used for data analysis. The STROBE checklist was used in the study. The study included 682 nurses, 85.3% female. The average age was 29.99 years, with a mean work experience of 7.52 years. Most participants (70.7%) worked in public training and research hospitals, with 327 nurses working mixed day-night shifts and 358 nurses managing 1–5 patients per shift. Fatigue levels, measured using the OFER, showed a mean score of 67.54 (22.89) for chronic fatigue. Self-efficacy in pressure ulcer management, assessed using the PUMSES, had a mean score of 48.39 (24.87). Higher PUMSES scores were found among nurses with certification in stoma and wound care (p < 0.001) and those who had attended relevant training (p < 0.001). Significant correlations were identified between OFER recovery scores, professional characteristics and PUMSES scores. This study revealed that nurses experience moderate-to-high levels of occupational fatigue and low levels of self-efficacy in PI management. Although no significant relationship was found between fatigue and self-efficacy, occupational factors such as poor sleep quality, long working hours and irregular shift patterns were associated with increased fatigue. In contrast, higher educational attainment, greater knowledge about PI and participation in professional training significantly enhanced nurses' self-efficacy in PI management. This study offers some early data on the possible role of occupational fatigue and PI preventive practices.
This study aimed to explore nurses' experiences with the Braden Scale, assess their readiness for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, and understand the innovations they envision for clinical practice.
Explanatory sequential mixed design.
The study included 118 nurses in the quantitative data and 42 in focus groups. Quantitative data were collected using the MAIRS-MS. Qualitative data were analysed using phenomenological approaches and MAXQDA.
The average age was 33.38 ± 7.42 years and 88.1% were women. The average length of professional experience is 11.66 ± 8.22 years. The average time to administer the Braden Scale was 5.02 ± 4.36 min. While 55.1% of the participants found the Braden Scale inadequate, 55.9% stated that a more comprehensive risk assessment scale was needed and the MAIRS-MS score was 78.48 ± 16.66. The sub-themes were identified: Simple and quick applicability, early risk identification, validity and reliability issues, neglecting other risk factors, making it more comprehensive and specific, developing of a new risk assessment scale, technological improvements, patient data treasure chest, creating avatars and converting speech-to-text.
This study highlights critical gaps in the Braden Scale's effectiveness. Nurses identified significant shortcomings, including non-specificity and the neglect of key risk factors, which undermine its utility in clinical settings. They emphasised that stronger risk predictions and personalised care plans can be achieved by AI technology.
This study emphasises the need to revise the Braden Scale or develop a new one due to its limitations in risk assessment, providing crucial information to improve patient care and offering new perspectives on AI integration in PI risk assessment for nursing practice.
This study highlights nurses' experiences and suggestions for improving the Braden Scale in clinical practice, emphasising their expectations for AI technology and its potential to revolutionise patient care.
The study report was prepared following the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) checklist.
No patient or public contribution.
FreshRSS 