Conectar
The aim of the study was to develop recommendations for creating a healthy work environment based on current literature for nurses working within the US Military Health System (MHS). However, our findings would likely benefit other nursing populations and environments as well.
Systematic literature review.
We conducted a systematic literature search for articles published between January 2010 until January 2024 from five databases: PubMed, Joanna Briggs, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus.
Articles were screened, selected and extracted using Covidence software. Article findings were synthesized to create recommendations for the development, implementation and measurement of healthy work environments.
Ultimately, a total of 110 articles met the criteria for inclusion in this review. The articles informed 13 recommendations for creating a healthy work environment. The recommendations included ensuring teamwork, mentorship, job satisfaction, supportive leadership, nurse recognition and adequate staffing and resources. Additionally, we identified strategies for implementing and measuring these recommendations.
This thorough systematic review created actionable recommendations for the creation of a healthy work environment. Based on available evidence, implementation of these recommendations could improve nursing work environments.
This study identifies methods for implementing and measuring aspects of a healthy work environment. Nurse leaders or others can implement the recommendations provided here to develop healthy work environments in their hospitals, clinics or other facilities where nurses practice.
PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
Cleansing is a vital component of effective wound hygiene and biofilm management, often accomplished through vigorous mechanical action or through soaking with moistened gauze. In the present study, a quantitative comparison of the effectiveness of different cleansing techniques and solutions in removing bacteria was conducted on 71 chronic wounds using bacterial fluorescence imaging as a real-time diagnostic for moderate to high bacterial loads. Vigorous gauze cleansing for 30 s proved most effective by reducing bacterial fluorescence by 33.99%, surpassing 10-min soaking in bacterial reduction (13.24%). Among different cleansers, no statistically significant differences in effectiveness were observed, but povidone-iodine showed the strongest trend towards bacterial reduction. Sub-analysis highlighted the superiority of antiseptic cleansers over saline and gentle soap (−33.30% vs. −1.80% bacterial reduction respectively). Five percent acetic acid was also shown to be more effective in removing specific bacterial strains (Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Findings from studies like this contribute to refining wound hygiene guidelines and clinical algorithms for bacterial and biofilm management.
This is a study assessing the effectiveness of staples versus sutures for closing incisions after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We searched all relevant literature up to July 2023, and after reading through the full text, we finally included 5 for analysis, with a total of 1084 cases who underwent total hip arthroplasty, of which 548 were closed with staples and 536 with sutures, and evaluated the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, using the ratio of ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare the effectiveness of staples and sutures in wound closure in total hip arthroplasty. The study found that the suture group was superior to the staple group in terms of superficial infection and incisional exudate; superficial infection (OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.14–8.07; p = 0.03, I 2 = 0%), incisional exudate (OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 1.84–5.65; p < 0.001, I 2 = 0%) and suture staples were superior to suture group in terms of closure time (WMD = −231.8 95% CI: −429.55 to −34.05; p = 0.02, I 2 = 100%). There was no remarkable distinction between the two groups in terms of deep infection, postoperative hospital, HWES score and patient's satisfaction, deep infection (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.35–4.35; p = 0.74, I 2 = 0%), postoperative hospital (WMD = 2.50 95% CI: −2.25 to 7.25; p = 0.30, I 2 = 100%), HWES score (WMD = −0.38 95% CI: −0.52 to −0.24; p < 0.01, I 2 = 72%) and patient's satisfaction (WMD = −0.23 95% CI: −1.43 to 0.96; p = 0.70, I 2 = 94%); however, due to the small sample sizes of several studies included in this study, caution must be exercised when addressing their value.
To date, we have reviewed the synthesis literature critically through four databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Eight relevant studies were examined after compliance with the criteria for inclusion and exclusion, as well as documentation quality evaluation. This report covered all randomised, controlled studies of total hip arthroplasty (THA) comparing the direct anterior approach (DAA) with the postero-lateral approach (PLA). The main result was surgical site infection rate. The secondary results were duration of the operation, length of the incision and VAS score after surgery. The results of the meta-analyses of wound infections in the present trial did not show any statistically significant difference in DAA versus PLA (between DAA and PLA) (OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.5 to 4.04, p = 0.51). Compared with PLA, DAA had shorter surgical incision (WMD = −3.2, 95%CI: −4.00 to −2.41; p < 0.001) and longer operative times(WMD = 14. 67, 95%CI: 9.24 to 20.09; p < 0.001). Postoperative VAS scores were markedly lower in DAA compared with PLA within 6 weeks of surgery (p < 0.05), with low heterogeneities(I 2 = 0). We found that DAA did not differ significantly from PLA in terms of the risk of wound infection for THA and that the surgical incisions was shorter and less postoperative pain after surgery, even though DAA surgery takes longer.
FreshRSS 