Conectar
This was a non-blinded, single-centre, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compared the effectiveness of direct observation of procedural skills (DOPSs)with traditional assessment methods in pressure injury (PI) care skills. The study population included 82 nursing professionals randomly assigned to the study group (n = 41) and the control group (n = 41). Both groups of nurses underwent a 6-month training in PI care skills and were subsequently evaluated. The main outcome variables were the PI skill operation scores and theoretical scores. Secondary outcome variables included satisfaction and critical thinking abilities. Independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess differences between the two groups of nurses. The results showed no statistically significant difference in PI skill operation scores between the two groups of nurses (p > 0.05). When comparing the PI theoretical scores, the study group scored higher than the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). In terms of satisfaction assessment, the study group and the control group showed differences in improving self-directed learning, enhancing communication skills with patients, improving learning outcomes and increasing flexibility in clinical application (p < 0.05). When comparing critical thinking abilities between the two groups of nurses, there was no statistically significant difference at the beginning of the training, but after 3 months following the training, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.01).The results indicated that the DOPS was effective in improving PI theoretical scores, increasing nurse satisfaction with the training and enhancing critical thinking abilities among nurses.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with multiple adverse health consequences. Nurses (including midwives) are well positioned to identify patients subjected to IPV, and provide care, support, and referrals. However, studies about nursing response to IPV are limited especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study aimed to examine nurses' perceived preparedness and opinions toward IPV and to identify barriers and facilitators in responding to IPV.
An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study was conducted by collecting quantitative data first and explaining the quantitative findings with qualitative data.
The study was conducted in two tertiary general hospitals in northeastern (Shenyang city) and southwestern (Chengdu city) China with 1500 and 1800 beds, respectively. A total of 1071 survey respondents (1039 female [97.0%]) and 43 interview participants (34 female [79.1%]) were included in the study. An online survey was administered from September 3 to 23, 2020, using two validated scales from the Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted from September 15 to December 23, 2020, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
The survey respondents largely agreed with feeling prepared to manage IPV, e.g., respond to discourses (544 [50.8%] of 1071) and report to police (704 [65.7%] of 1071). The findings of surveyed opinions (i.e., Response competencies; Routine practice; Actual activities; Professionals; Victims; Alcohol/drugs) were mixed and intertwined with social desirability bias. The quantitative and qualitative data were consistent, contradicted, and supplemented. Key qualitative findings were revealed that may explain the quantitative results, including lack of actual preparedness, absence of IPV-related education, training, or practice, and socially desirable responses (especially those pertaining to China's Anti-domestic Violence Law). Commonly reported barriers (e.g., patients' reluctance to disclose; time constraints) and facilitators (e.g., patients' strong need for help; female nurses' gender advantage), as well as previously unreported barriers (e.g., IPV may become a workplace taboo if there are healthcare professionals known as victims/perpetrators of IPV) and facilitators (e.g., nurses' responses can largely meet the first-line support requirements even without formal education or training on IPV) were identified.
Nurses may play a unique and important role in responding to IPV in LMICs where recognition is limited, education and training are absent, policies are lacking, and resources are scarce. Our findings support World Health Organization recommendations for selective screening.
The study highlights the great potential of nurses for IPV prevention and intervention especially in LMICs. The identified barriers and facilitators are important evidence for developing multifaceted interventions to address IPV in the health sector.
FreshRSS 