Conectar
To assess agreement of pressure injury risk level and differences in preventative intervention prescription between nurses using a structured risk assessment tool compared with clinical judgement.
Interrater agreement study.
Data were collected from November 2019 to December 2022. Paired nurse-assessors were allocated randomly to independently assess pressure injury risk using a structured tool (incorporating the Waterlow Score), or clinical judgement; then prescribe preventative interventions. Assessments were conducted on 150 acute patient participants in a general tertiary hospital. Agreement of risk level was analysed using absolute agreement proportions, weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa.
Ninety-four nurse assessors participated. Absolute agreement of not-at-risk versus at-risk-any-level was substantial, but absolute agreement of risk-level was only fair. Clinical judgement assessors tended to underestimate risk. Where risk level was agreed, prescribed intervention frequencies were similar, although structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions mandated by standard care, while clinical judgement assessors prescribed more additional/optional interventions. Structured tool assessors prescribed more interventions targeted at lower-risk patients, whereas assessors using clinical judgement prescribed more interventions targeted at higher-risk patients.
There were clear differences in pressure injury risk-level assessment between nurses using the two methods, with important differences in intervention prescription frequencies found. Further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk, with emphasis on the impact of risk assessments on subsequent preventative intervention implementation.
The results of this study are important for clinical practice as they demonstrate the influence of using a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool compared to clinical judgement. Whilst further research is required into the use of both structured tools and clinical judgement to assess pressure injury risk and prescribe interventions, our findings do not support a change in practice that would exclude the use of a structured pressure injury risk assessment tool.
This study adhered to the GRRAS reporting guideline.
No patient or public involvement in this study.
Educators and researchers can use the findings to guide teaching about pressure injury risk assessment and preventative intervention and to direct future studies. For clinical nurses and patients, a change in clinical practice that would exclude the use of a structured risk assessment tool is not recommended and further work is needed to validate the role of clinical judgement to assess risk and its impact on preventative intervention.
To explore the factors that affect the experiences of autistic patients in the hospital setting.
A scoping review.
A systematic literature search using the databases CINAHL, Medline and Google Scholar was undertaken in September 2021 and updated in January 2023. This review is based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley (International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1):19–32, 2005), which was further refined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.
Autistic patients, as well as their families and healthcare staff, face several barriers that can impact their healthcare experiences within hospital settings. Of 211 articles screened, 30 were eligible and included. Through our review, we identified two main themes. The first theme, ‘challenges to hospital experiences’, includes four sub-themes: (1) communication, (2) a mismatch between the needs for autistic patients and the hospital environment, (3) challenges related to parents' experiences and (4) challenges related to hospital systems. The second theme, ‘facilitators that improve hospital experiences’, includes three sub-themes: (1) provision of care pathways, (2) partnership between parents and experts and (3) facilitators to improve hospital systems. By understanding these themes, we can work to address the barriers that autistic patients and their families face, while leveraging the facilitators to improve their hospital experiences.
It is critical to understand the experiences of autistic patients in the hospital setting because they present a substantial risk of hospital admission due to their associated acute to chronic health conditions. Additionally, nurses and other medical staff must understand the unique hospital experiences and challenges of autistic patients to improve care and facilitate better hospital experiences. This review further highlights the crucial need to adopt a collaborative and inclusive approach between autistic patients, their families and healthcare staff. To achieve this, co-design initiatives that incorporate the perspectives and lived experiences of the autistic community are necessary. By placing autistic voices at the forefront of these initiatives, it is hoped that changes are meaningful, relevant and can be sustained.
Understanding the unique hospital experiences and challenges of autistic patients can improve their quality of life and well-being by reducing stress and anxiety during hospitalization, leading to better health outcomes and potentially shorter hospital stays. It can also promote a more positive view of healthcare among autistic individuals, encouraging them to seek medical care when needed and have broader societal impacts such as reducing healthcare costs and improving the overall health and well-being of the population. Autistic patients present a substantial risk of hospital admission due to their associated acute to chronic conditions. Nurses and other medical staff must understand the unique hospital experiences and challenges of autistic patients to improve care and facilitate better hospital experiences.
No patient or public contribution.
To develop a framework to guide the successful integration of nurse practitioners (NPs) into practice settings and, working from a social justice lens, deliver comprehensive primary healthcare which advances health equity.
Integrative review.
The integrative review was informed by the Whittemore and Knafl's framework and followed the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool. Findings were extracted and thematically analysed using NVivo. A social justice lens informed all phases.
Databases, including CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for peer-reviewed literature published in English between 2005 and April 2022.
Twenty-eight articles were included. Six themes were identified at the individual (micro), local health provider (meso), and national systems and structures (macro) levels of the health sector: (1) autonomy and agency; (2) awareness and visibility; (3) shared vision; (4) leadership; (5) funding and infrastructure; and (6) intentional support and self-care. The evidence-based framework is explicitly focused on the components required to successfully integrate NPs into primary healthcare to advance health equity.
Integrating NPs into primary healthcare is complex and requires a multilevel approach at macro, meso and micro levels. NPs offer the potential to transform primary healthcare delivery to meet the health needs of local communities. Health workforce and integration policies and strategies are essential if the contribution of NPs is to be realized. The proposed framework offers an opportunity for further research to inform NP integration.
Nurse practitioners (NPs) offer the potential to transform primary healthcare services to meet local community health needs and advance health equity. Globally, there is a lack of guidance and health policy to support the integration of the NP workforce. The developed framework provides guidance to successfully integrate NPs to deliver comprehensive primary healthcare grounded in social justice. Integrating NPs into PHC is complex and requires a multilevel approach at macro, meso and micro levels. The framework offers an opportunity for further research to inform NP integration, education and policy.
What problem did the study address: The challenges of integrating nurse practitioners (NPs) into primary healthcare (PHC) are internationally recognized. Attempts to establish NP roles in New Zealand have been ad hoc with limited research, evidence-informed frameworks or policy to guide integration initiatives. Our review builds on existing international literature to understand how NPs are successfully integrated into PHC to advance health equity and provide a guiding framework. What were the main findings: Six themes were identified across individual (micro), local health provider (meso) and national systems and structures (macro) levels as fundamental to NP integration: autonomy and agency; awareness and visibility of the NP and their role; a shared vision for the direction of primary healthcare utilizing NP scope of practice; leadership in all spaces; necessary funding and infrastructure; and intentional support and self-care. Where and on whom will the research have an impact: Given extant health workforce challenges together with persisting health inequities, NPs provide a solution to delivering comprehensive primary healthcare from a social justice lens to promote healthcare access and health equity. The proposed evidence-informed framework provides guidance for successful integration across the health sector, training providers, as well as the NP profession, and is a platform for future research.
This integrative review adhered to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method.
No patient or public contribution.
FreshRSS 