Conectar
To identify and synthesise qualitative studies on barriers and facilitators perceived by dialysis patients in relation to self-care and disease management.
Systematic review of qualitative studies.
Qualitative study articles were extracted from PUBMED, MEDLINE, COCHRANE, WEB OF SCIENCE (WOS), CINAHL PsycINFO and EMBASE and electronic journals of the Spanish Society of Nephrology and Spanish Society of Nephrological Nursing until May 2022. Studies on barriers and/or facilitators affecting self-care and disease management expressed by people undergoing haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis were included.
The SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison and Evaluation) strategy was used to develop issues and subissues through the thematic synthesis of the qualitative findings. GRADE-CERQual was used to evaluate the articles.
From 172 articles, 15 qualitative articles about barriers and facilitators perceived by patients concerning self-care and disease management were finally included. Identified eight facilitators and four barriers.
Patients perceived a significant number of barriers and facilitators. It is possible to identify which aspects facilitate self-management of their disease and to understand that the processes are individualised. This is why therapeutic strategies should be designed to foster the participation and empowerment of the person in the management of the disease.
Identifying the barriers and facilitators concerning the management of chronic kidney disease furnishes us with knowledge for individualised clinical practice and improved care processes.
This review is the first to synthesise barriers and facilitators in haemodialysis patients about the management of their disease and treatment. The results enable the proposal of improvements in the training of healthcare personnel, clinical practice guidelines and action protocols to improve the daily life and management of the disease by patients.
No patient or public contribution due to this is a systematic review.
To design, develop and validate a new tool, called NEUMOBACT, to evaluate critical care nurses' knowledge and skills in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and catheter-related bacteraemia (CRB) prevention through simulation scenarios involving central venous catheter (CVC), endotracheal suctioning (ETS) and mechanically ventilated patient care (PC) stations.
Simulation-based training is an excellent way for nurses to learn prevention measures in VAP and CRB.
Descriptive metric study to develop NEUMOBACT and analyse its content and face validity that followed the COSMIN Study Design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments.
The first version was developed with the content of training modules in use at the time (NEUMOBACT-1). Delphi rounds were used to assess item relevance with experts in VAP and CRB prevention measures, resulting in NEUMOBACT-2. Experts in simulation methods then assessed feasibility, resulting in NEUMOBACT-3. Finally, a pilot test was conducted among 30 intensive care unit (ICU) nurses to assess the applicability of the evaluation tool in clinical practice.
Seven national experts in VAP and CRB prevention and seven national simulation experts participated in the analysis to assess the relevance and feasibility of each item, respectively. After two Delphi rounds with infection experts, four Delphi rounds with simulation experts, and pilot testing with 30 ICU nurses, the NEUMOBACT-FINAL tool consisted of 17, 26 and 21 items, respectively, for CVC, ETS and PC.
NEUMOBACT-FINAL is useful and valid for assessing ICU nurses' knowledge and skills in VAP and CRB prevention, acquired through simulation.
Our validated and clinically tested tool could facilitate the transfer of ICU nurses' knowledge and skills learning in VAP and CRB prevention to critically ill patients, decreasing infection rates and, therefore, improving patient safety.
Experts participated in the Delphi rounds and nurses in the pilot test.
To investigate the level of adoption of evidence-based family engagement and support during end-of-life cancer care and subsequent bereavement and its contextual facilitators and barriers from health professionals' perspectives, and to explore differences between professional groups.
Contextual analysis using an online cross-sectional survey.
This study was conducted in four Swiss hospitals and three home care oncology and palliative care services. Non-parametric testing was used to investigate the level of adoption and differences between nurses, physicians, occupational- and physiotherapists and psychosocial professionals (chaplains, onco-psychologists and social workers). The STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies was followed.
The majority of the 111 participating health professionals were nurses. Adoption was statistically significantly higher during end-of-life care than bereavement, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than the other professional groups. Guidance on end-of-life family care was available in about half of the cases, in contrast to a quarter for bereavement care. Self-perceived knowledge, skills and attitudes were moderate to high, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than others, except for general skills in working with families. Organisational structures were experienced as rather supportive, with the psychosocial group appraising the organisational context as significantly less conducive to fully implementing end-of-life and bereavement care than others, particularly during the end-of-life phase.
Evidence-based family engagement and support were better adopted during end-of-life care than bereavement. Overall, nurses and physicians felt better enabled to care for families compared to other professional groups.
No patient or public contribution.
Implementation and quality improvement efforts should focus particularly on the bereavement phase and be tailored to professional groups.
The findings show that evidence-based family engagement and support practices during end-of-life were rather well adopted in contrast to subsequent bereavement care, with nurses and physicians better enabled than other professionals to provide care. A better understanding of health professionals' contributions and roles in family care is important to build interprofessional capacity for evidence-based end-of-life and bereavement support.
The STROBE checklist for reports of cross-sectional studies was followed (von Elm et al., 2007).
FreshRSS 