Conectar
This study explored the knowledge and confidence levels of nursing academics in teaching both the theories and practical skills of digital health in undergraduate nursing programs.
A cross-sectional study.
A structured online survey was distributed among nursing academics across Australian universities. The survey included two sections: (1) the participants' demographics and their nursing and digital health teaching experience; (2) likert scales asking the participants to rate their knowledge and confidence to teach the theories and practical skills of four main themes; digital health technologies, information exchange, quality and digital professionalism.
One hundred and nineteen nursing academics completed part one, and 97 individuals completed part two of the survey. Only 6% (n = 5) of the participants reported having formal training in digital health. Digital health was mainly taught as a module (n = 57, 45.9%), and assessments of theory or practical application of digital health in the nursing curriculum were uncommon, with 79 (69.9%) responding that there was no digital health assessment in their entry to practice nursing programs. Among the four core digital health themes, the participants rated high on knowledge of digital professionalism (22.4% significant knowledge vs. 5.9% no knowledge) but low on information exchange (30% significant knowledge vs. 28.3% no knowledge). Statistically significant (p < .001) associations were found between different themes of digital health knowledge and the level of confidence in teaching its application. Nursing academics with more than 15 years of teaching experience had a significantly higher level of knowledge and confidence in teaching digital health content compared with those with fewer years of teaching experience.
There is a significant gap in nursing academics' knowledge and confidence to teach digital health theory and its application in nursing. Nursing academics need to upskill in digital health to prepare the future workforce to be capable in digitally enabled health care settings.
Nursing academics have a limited level of digital knowledge and confidence in preparing future nurses to work in increasingly technology-driven health care environments. Addressing this competency gap and providing sufficient support for nursing academics in this regard is essential.
What problem did the study address? Level of knowledge and confidence among nursing academics to teach digital health in nursing practice. What were the main findings? There is a significant gap in nursing academics' knowledge and confidence to teach digital health theory and its application in nursing. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? Professional nursing education globally.
The STROBE guideline was used to guide the reporting of the study.
The call for participation from nursing academics across Australia provided an introductory statement about the project, its aim and scope, and the contact information of the principal researcher. A participant information sheet was shared with the call providing a detailed explanation of participation. Nursing academics across Australia participated in the survey through the link embedded in the participation invite.
The American Nurses Credentialing Center's (ANCC's) Practice Transition Accreditation Program (PTAP) establishes standards for nurse residency programs to elevate and optimize the skills, knowledge, and attitudes of new nurses participating in nurse residency programs. Evidence-based practice (EBP) is foundational to providing safe nursing care. One of the National Academy of Medicine's (NAM's) 2020 goals stated that 90% of clinical decisions would be supported by the best available evidence to attain the best patient outcomes. Nurse residency programs can benefit from evidence-based strategies to develop EBP competencies in new nurses.
The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize the literature around strategies for incorporating EBP into nurse residency programs across the United States.
This scoping review was informed by the JBI (formerly known as the Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. Searches were conducted by a health science librarian in PubMed and CINAHL with Full Text. Keywords and their synonyms, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH; PubMed), and Subject Headings (CINAHL with Full Text) were used. Covidence, a literature review management program, was used to organize the literature and manage the review. Title, abstract, and full-text reviews were completed within Covidence using three teams of two independent reviewers.
Four hundred and thirty-eight citations were imported into Covidence. Ten articles were retained for the final review. Three strategies for incorporating EBP into nurse residency programs emerged from the literature: (1) exposure of nurse residents to existing organizational resources, (2) completion of online EBP modules, and (3) completion of an EBP project.
The incorporation of EBP competencies in nurse residency programs aligns with NAM's and ANCC's goals, yet a paucity of evidence exists to guide curriculum development in nurse residency programs. This scoping review corroborates the need for further research to inform best practices for implementing EBP into nurse residency programs.
The intent of the PICOT (i.e., Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) method is to formulate focused clinical questions to facilitate the discovery of relevant evidence through systematic searching, with the components of the question serving as the foundation for the search. Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) graduates use evidence-based practices to institute changes in their organizations' systems and policies, thereby yielding positive effects on both patient and system outcomes. Given that the clinical question is the foundation of the evidence-based practice process, DNP graduates' competence in the PICOT method needs to be better understood.
This analysis aimed to describe how DNP students used the PICOT method to ask clinical questions in their DNP projects.
Project questions were retrieved from a subset (n = 129, 60.56%) of an existing national random sample of publicly available DNP projects spanning the years 2010 to 2021 from Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education-accredited schools (n = 213). Project questions using the PICOT method were further evaluated with a scoring system of 0 = no and 1 = yes for missing elements, formatting, directional outcome, and project purpose. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more errors. Discussion among five researchers, until agreement was achieved, yielded consensus.
Although the PICOT method was project author-identified in 66 (31.0%) projects, only four (6%) followed the PICOT method. All 66 (100%) were intervention questions. There were 2.74 (SD 1.55) mean errors, ranging from 0 to 6. No questions were missing P or O. Specific errors included missing I 3 (4.5%) or missing C 37 (56%), poor formatting 34 (51.5%), directional outcome 44 (66.7%), and project purpose 38 (57.6%). Thirty-three (50%) of the questions were missing T; however, T is not used for searching, so researchers recalculated the mean error without T (M = 2.24, SD = 1.28, range 0–5).
Gaps in the accurate use of the PICOT method to construct clinical questions can lead to biased searches, inaccurate clinical problem identification, and, when used as the project purpose, jumping to non-evidence-based solutions. Academic faculty and clinical educators can mitigate these skewed outcomes and enhance their impact on quality outcomes by helping DNP-prepared nurses shore up this foundational skill.
by Sarah Carbone, Whitney Berta, Susan Law, Kerry Kuluski
The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have shifted the care trajectories of many residents and care partners in Ontario who considered leaving LTC to live in the community for a portion or the duration of the pandemic. This type of care transition–from LTC to home care–was highly uncommon prior to the pandemic, therefore we know relatively little about the planning and decision-making involved. The aim of this study was to describe who was involved in LTC to home care transitions in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent, and the factors that guided their decision-making. A qualitative description study involving semi-structured interviews with 32 residents, care partners and health professionals was conducted. Transition decisions were largely made by care partners, with varied input from residents or health professionals. Stakeholders considered seven factors, previously identified in a scoping review, when making their transition decisions: (a) institutional priorities and requirements; (b) resources; (c) knowledge; (d) risk; (e) group structure and dynamic; (f) health and support needs; and (g) personality preferences and beliefs. Participants’ emotional responses to the pandemic also influenced the perceived need to pursue a care transition. The findings of this research provide insights towards the planning required to support LTC to home care transitions, and the many challenges that arise during decision-making.by Kerry A. Sewell, Jana Schellinger, Jamie E. Bloss
IntroductionThe PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.
MethodsThis study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993–2009 (n = 211) and 2012–2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.
ResultsThe number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.
ConclusionFollowing the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.
FreshRSS 