To identify and characterize the thematic foci, structure and evolution of nursing research on surveillance and patient safety.
Bibliometric analysis.
Bibliometric methods were employed to analyse 1145 articles, using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer software.
The Scopus bibliographic database was searched on April 7, 2023.
A keyword co-occurrence analysis found the most frequently occurring keywords to be: patient safety, nursing, nurses, adverse events, monitoring, critical care, quality improvement, vital signs, safety, alarm fatigue, education, nursing care, surveillance, clinical alarms, failure to rescue, evidence-based practice, acute care, clinical deterioration, communication, intensive care. Network mapping, clustering and time-tracking of the keywords revealed the focal themes, structure and evolution of the research field.
By assessing critical areas of the nursing research field, this study extends and enriches the current discourse on surveillance and patient safety for nursing researchers and practitioners. Critical challenges still have to be met by nurses, however, including the failure to rescue deteriorating patients. Further knowledge and understanding of surveillance and patient safety must be successfully translated from research to practice.
This study highlights the gaps in nursing knowledge with regard to surveillance and patient safety and encourages nursing professionals to turn to evidence-based surveillance practices.
In addressing the problem of surveillance and its effect on patient safety, this study found that, in most clinical care settings, preventing failures to rescue and adverse patient outcomes still remains a challenge for the nursing profession. This study should have an impact on nursing academics' future research themes and on nursing professionals' future clinical practices.
Relevant EQUATOR guidelines have been adhered to by employing recognized bibliometric reporting methods.
by Zhen Zhao, Owen Lou, Yiyang Wang, Raymond Yin, Carrie Gong, Florence Deng, Ethan C. Wu, Jing Yi Xie, Jerry Wu, Avery Ma, Yongzhi Guo, Wei Ting Xiong
While systemic corticosteroids quicken patient recovery during acute exacerbations of COPD, they also have many adverse effects. The optimal duration of corticosteroid administration remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patient outcomes between short- (≤7 days) and long- (>7 days) corticosteroid regimens in adults with acute exacerbations of COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and hand searches were used to identify eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and ROBINS-I. Data were summarized as ORs (odds ratios) or MDs (mean differences) whenever possible and qualitatively described otherwise. A total of 11532 participants from eight RCTs and three retrospective cohort studies were included, with 1296 from seven RCTs and two cohort studies eligible for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was present in the methodology and settings of the studies. The OR (using short duration as the treatment arm) for mortality was 0.76 (95% CI = 0.40–1.44, n = 1055). The MD for hospital length-of-stay was -0.91 days (95% CI = -1.81–-0.02 days, n = 421). The OR for re-exacerbations was 1.31 (95% CI = 0.90–1.90, n = 552). The OR for hyperglycemia was 0.90 (95% CI = 0.60–1.33, n = 423). The OR for infection incidence was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.59–1.156, n = 389). The MD for one-second forced expiratory volume change was -18.40 mL (95% CI = -111.80–75.01 mL, n = 161). The RCTs generally had low or unclear risks of bias, while the cohort studies had serious or moderate risks of bias. Our meta-analyses were affected by imprecision due to insufficient data. Some heterogeneity was present in the results, suggesting population, setting, and treatment details are potential prognostic factors. Our evidence suggests that short-duration treatments are not worse than long-duration treatments in moderate/severe exacerbations and may lead to considerably better outcomes in milder exacerbations. This supports the current GOLD guidelines. Trial registration: Our protocol is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42023374410.