Conectar
To provide a comprehensive overview of how stroke nurses manage solid medication (SM) delivery to patients with post-stroke dysphagia.
Cross-sectional study.
A self-administered online survey was carried out among nurses in German-speaking countries between September and December 2021.
Out of a total of 754 responses, analysis was conducted on 195 nurses who reported working on a stroke unit. To identify swallowing difficulties in acute stroke care, 99 nurses indicated routinely administering standardised screenings, while 10 use unvalidated screenings, and 82 are waiting for a specialist evaluation. Regardless of whether screening methods are used or not, most preferred a non-oral route of medication administration for patients with suspected dysphagia. None of the respondents reported administering whole SMs orally to patients. If screening methods indicate dysphagia, approximately half of the respondents would modify SMs. Participants who stated to use the Gugging Swallowing Screen managed the SM intake guided by its severity levels. One-third of the group who awaited assessment by the dysphagia specialist provided modified medication before the consultation.
Most of the nurses on stroke units use swallowing screens and avoid the administration of whole SMs in post-stroke dysphagia. In addition to the non-oral administration, SMs are modified if dysphagia is suspected. Precise guidance on the administration of SM is needed, based on screening tests and prior to expert consultation.
ClinicalTrials.gov: Registration ID: NCT05173051/ Protocol ID: 11TS003721.
The present paper serves to alert nurses to the issue of patient safety when administering medication for acute stroke-induced dysphagia.
SM delivery after acute stroke-induced dysphagia is often neglected. While nurses are aware of the risk associated with dysphagia and would not give whole SMs to patients, the modification of tablets and their administration with semisolids are common.
This study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).
To determine antecedents and outcomes of work engagement (WE) among nursing staff in long-term care (LTC) using the Job Demand-Resources model.
A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis in systematic reviews guideline. A study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022336736).
The initial searches were performed in PsycInfo, Medline, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL and Scopus and yielded 3050 unique publications. Updated searches identified another 335 publications. Sixteen studies published from 2010 to 2022 were included.
The screening of titles and abstracts, and subsequently full-text publications, was performed blinded by two author teams using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. When needed, a mutual consensus was obtained through discussion within and across the teams. A descriptive and narrative synthesis without a meta-analysis of the included studies was performed.
The extent of research on WE in LTC facilities is limited and the factors examined are heterogeneous. Of forty-two unique antecedents and outcomes, only three factors were assessed in three or more studies. Antecedents—in particular job resources—are more commonly examined than outcomes.
Existing literature offers scant evidence on antecedents and outcomes of WE among nursing staff in LTC facilities. Social support, learning and development opportunities and person-centred processes are the most examined factors, yet with ambiguous results.
Antecedents and outcomes of engagement among nursing staff in LTC facilities have not previously been reviewed systematically. Engagement has been correlated with both more efficient and higher-quality service delivery. Our findings suggest opportunities to improve health and care services by enhancing engagement, whilst at the same time better caring for employees. This study lays the groundwork for more detailed research into the contributing factors and potential results of increasing caregivers' engagement.
No patient or public contribution.
Management of an endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps can be challenging due to the risk of residual tumour and lymphatic spread. International studies have shown, that of those choosing surgical management instead of surveillance strategy, there are between 54% and 82% of bowel resections without evidence of residual tumour or lymphatic spread. As surgical management entails risks of complications and surveillance strategy entails risks of residual tumour or recurrence, a clinical dilemma arises when choosing a management strategy. Shared decision-making is a concept that can be used in preference-sensitive decision-making to facilitate patient involvement and empowerment to facilitate active patient participation in the decision-making process.
This study protocol describes our clinical multi-institutional, non-randomised, interventional phase II study at Danish surgical departments planned to commence in the second quarter of 2024. The aim of this study is to examine whether shared decision-making and using a patient decision aid in consultations affect patients’ choice of management, comparing with retrospective data. The secondary aim is to investigate patients’ experiences, perceived involvement, satisfaction, decision conflict and other outcomes using questionnaire feedback directly from the patients.
There are no conflicts of interest for principal or local investigators in any of the study sites. All results will be published at Danish and international meetings, and in English language scientific peer-reviewed journals. Our study underwent evaluation by the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (file number 20232000-47), concluding that formal approval was not required for this kind of research.
FreshRSS 