Search

In this study, we aimed to explore the experiences of being cared for in an intensive care unit (ICU) through patients' memories. We adopted a convergent parallel mixed-method design. We interviewed 100 patients shortly after their ICU discharge. Content analysis revealed 14 categories and 49 codes grouped according to themes corresponding to ICU Memory tool core components (factual events, feelings, delusions). The most critical patients reported mostly fragmented or delusional memories, the less critically-ill more factual memories. All experiences were recounted with strong feelings. ICU was identified as a hostile, stressful environment. Positive experiences were mainly associated with a sense of safety promoted by the nurses. Negative experiences were related to privacy and dignity violations, lack of empathy, not being understood, delays/lack of obtaining support, and total control by the health care staff. Removing any avoidable sources of stress and ensuring personalized, dignified care represent a key aim for ICU interprofessional teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Undergraduate nursing students have been documented to experience ethical distress during their clinical training and felt poorly supported in discussing the ethical issues they encountered. Research aims: This study was aimed at exploring nursing students' perceived opportunity to discuss ethical issues that emerged during their clinical learning experience and associated factors. Research design: An Italian national cross-sectional study design was performed in 2015–2016. Participants were invited to answer a questionnaire composed of four sections regarding: (1) socio-demographic data, (2) previous clinical learning experiences, (3) current clinical learning experience quality and outcomes, and (4) the opportunity to discuss ethical issues with nurses in the last clinical learning experience (from 0 – 'never' to 3 – 'very much'). Participants and research context: Participants were 9607 undergraduate nursing students who were attending 95 different three-year Italian baccalaureate nursing programmes, located at 27 universities in 15 Italian regions. Ethical considerations: This study was conducted in accordance with the Human Subject Research Ethics Committee guidelines after the research protocol was approved by an ethics committee. Findings: Overall, 4707 (49%) perceived to have discussed ethical issues 'much' or 'very much'; among the remaining, 3683 (38.3%) and 1217 (12.7%) students reported the perception of having discussed, respectively, 'enough' or 'never' ethical issues emerged in the clinical practice. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis explaining 38.1% of the overall variance, the factors promoting ethical discussion were mainly set at the clinical learning environment levels (i.e. increased learning opportunities, self-directed learning, safety and nursing care quality, quality of the tutorial strategies, competences learned and supervision by a clinical nurse). In contrast, being male was associated with a perception of less opportunity to discuss ethical issues. Conclusion: Nursing faculties should assess the clinical environment prerequisites of the settings as a context of student experience before deciding on their accreditation. Moreover, the nursing faculty and nurse managers should also enhance competence with regard to discussing ethical issues with students among clinical nurses by identifying factors that hinder this learning opportunity in daily practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Error reporting is considered one of the most important mediating factors for patient safety (PS). However, reporting errors can be challenging for health care students. Objectives: The aims of the study were: (i) to describe nursing students' opportunity to report errors, near misses or PS issues that emerged during their clinical learning experience; and (ii) to explore associated factors of the process of reporting itself. Methods: A national survey was conducted on 9607 (91.7%) undergraduate nursing students. The endpoint was to have reported PS issues in the last clinical learning experience (from 0 'never' to 3 'always'). Explanatory variables were set individual, nursing programme and regional levels. Results: A total of 4004 (41.7%) nursing students reported PS issues from 'never/rarely' to 'sometimes'. In the multi‐level analysis, factors increasing the likelihood of reporting events affecting PS have been mainly at the nursing programme level: specifically, higher learning opportunities (odds ratio [OR] = 3.040; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.667–3.466), self‐directed learning opportunities (OR = 1.491; 95% CI, 1.364–1.630), safety and nursing care quality (OR = 1.411; 95% CI, 1.250–1.594) and quality of tutorial strategies OR = 1.251; 95% CI, 1.113–1.406). By contrast, being supervised by a nurse teacher (OR = 0.523; 95% CI, 0.359–0.761) prevented the disclosure of PS issues compared with being supervised by a clinical nurse. Students attending their nursing programmes in some Italian regions showed a higher likelihood (OR from 1.346 to 2.938) of reporting PS issues compared with those undertaking their education in other regions. Conclusions: Nursing students continue to be reticent to report PS issues. Given that they represent the largest generation of future health care workers, their education regarding PS should be continuously monitored and improved; moreover, strategies aimed at developing a non‐blaming culture should be designed and implemented both at the clinical learning setting and regional levels. Palese et al. disclose that many nursing students do not discuss safety issues that emerge during their clinical practice, highlighting environmental features that discourage such reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To document the prevalence of the nursing diagnosis of anxiety in hospital patients, based on its level of severity, defining characteristics (DCs), and other related factors, and to identify the key DCs that serve as predictors of clinically significant anxiety (CSA). Design: Cross‐sectional study. We enrolled 116 consecutive adult patients hospitalized from October 10 to 16, 2016, in medical‐surgical wards within the first 48 hr of admission. Methods: The potential DCs and related factors of anxiety were collected based on the NANDA International terminology. Anxiety was considered clinically significant when presenting at moderate, severe, or panic level. The differences in DC prevalence among patients having or not having CSA were analyzed by unpaired student's t‐test. Multivariate analysis was used to examine the independent association between the DCs and CSA. Findings: The prevalence of CSA was 36.2% and was significantly higher in patients who were older, female, and taking anxiolytic drugs, and among those who had cancer. The most frequent related factor for CSA was major change in health status. In the logistic regression, the presence of the DCs helplessness, altered attention or concentration, and anguish independently increased the odds of having CSA, whereas subjects presenting with Diminished ability to problem‐solve had about a 96% reduction in the likelihood to suffer from such a condition. Conclusions: A high prevalence of CSA among medical‐surgical patients was shown. Furthermore, a critical cluster of DCs useful to identify CSA was found. Clinical Relevance: The ability to accurately diagnose CSA should help prescribe and deliver the appropriate nursing interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]