Conectar
To systematically summarise evidence related to the use of non-sterile gloves when preparing and administering intravenous antimicrobials.
Scoping review.
A rigorous scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework and the modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review guidelines (2018). Five databases and grey literature were included in the search. Literature published between 2009 and 2024 was included.
Five databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science) and the grey literature were searched in February 2024.
Three studies were included; however, none directly addressed correct non-sterile glove use during intravenous antimicrobial preparation or administration in clinical practice.
We found no evidence to support the use of non-sterile gloves in intravenous antimicrobial preparation. There is an urgent need for rigorous research to inform the development of clear guidelines on non-sterile glove use to underpin evidence-based decision-making in nursing and other health professional education, improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs and promote environmental sustainability in healthcare.
Inappropriate use of non-sterile gloves for preparing and administering intravenous antimicrobials hinders correct hand hygiene practices and increases healthcare-associated infections, healthcare costs and waste.
A critical gap in the existing evidence was a key finding of this review, highlighting the urgency for evidence-based guidelines to improve patient safety outcomes, reduce healthcare costs and promote environmental sustainability in healthcare.
This scoping review adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting checklist.
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY4J2).
Ascertain the impact of mandated use of early warning systems (EWSs) on the development of registered nurses' higher-order thinking.
A systematic literature review was conducted, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist (Page et al., 2021).
CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PyscInfo.
Eligible articles were quality appraised using the MMAT tool. Data extraction was conducted independently by four reviewers. Three investigators thematically analysed the data.
Our review found that EWSs can support or suppress the development of nurses' higher-order thinking. EWS supports the development of higher-order thinking in two ways; by confirming nurses' subjective clinical assessment of patients and/or by providing a rationale for the escalation of care. Of note, more experienced nurses expressed their view that junior nurses are inhibited from developing effective higher-order thinking due to reliance on the tool.
EWSs facilitate early identification of clinical deterioration in hospitalised patients. The impact of EWSs on the development of nurses' higher-order thinking is under-explored. We found that EWSs can support and suppress nurses' higher-order thinking. EWS as a supportive factor reinforces the development of nurses' heuristics, the mental shortcuts experienced clinicians call on when interpreting their subjective clinical assessment of patients. Conversely, EWS as a suppressive factor inhibits the development of nurses' higher-order thinking and heuristics, restricting the development of muscle memory regarding similar presentations they may encounter in the future. Clinicians' ability to refine and expand on their catalogue of heuristics is important as it endorses the future provision of safe and effective care for patients who present with similar physiological signs and symptoms.
This research impacts health services and education providers as EWS and nurses' development of higher-order thinking skills are essential aspects of delivering safe, quality care.
This is a systematic review, and therefore, comprises no contribution from patients or the public.
FreshRSS 