Search

Objective: The assessment of critical nursing situations can be a valuable tool in the detection of weak elements in the safety of patients and the quality of care in the ICU. A critical nursing situation can be defined as any observable situation, which deviates from good clinical practice and which may potentially lead to an adverse event. The aim of our study was to establish the feasibility, reliability and validity of the Critical Nursing Situation Index (CNSI) as a tool for assessing the safety and the quality of nursing in the ICU.Design: We described the deviations from standards and protocols in daily ICU nursing care, selected those with an implicit, clear risk for the patients and translated them into explicitly observable items. If an item was applicable during observation of the ICU practice, a critical nursing situation could be recorded as either true or false. The reliability of the CNSI was defined in terms of inter-observer agreement. The validity was assessed by exploring the relationship between the nursing time available (more or less than 30 min per patient per hour) and the incidence of critical nursing situations.Setting: The study was performed in the ICU of a teaching hospital (30 IC beds) in which all disciplines, including cardiothoracic surgery and neurosurgery, were represented.Patients: The CNSI was randomly applied to 83 ICU patients over a period of 3 months (200 times).Measurements and Results: The reliability of the index was substantial (Kappa values in the range > or =0.70 to > 0.80). In terms of validity, less nursing time resulted in more critical situations (pooled relative risk (RR) 1.36; 95% confidence limits 1.11/1.67).Conclusion: The CNSI is simple to use and has encouraging metric properties, whereas the assessments are closely related to direct patient care. Moreover, the CNSI provides a tool for safety assessment by monitoring potentially dangerous situations that are generally regarded as needing to be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Regionalization and concentration of critical care increases the need for interhospital transport. However, optimal staffing of ground critical care transport has not been evaluated., Methods: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint non-inferiority trial, critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation transported by interhospital ground critical care transport were randomized between transport staffed by a dedicated team comprising a critical care nurse and paramedic (nurses group) or a dedicated team including a critical care physician (nurses + physician group). The primary outcome was the number of patients with critical events, both clinical and technical, during transport. Clinical events included decrease in blood pressure, oxygen saturation, or temperature, blood loss, new cardiac arrhythmias, or death. Non-inferiority was assumed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the between-group difference lies below the non-inferiority margin of 3 %., Results: Of 618 eligible transported critically ill patients, 298 could be analyzed after randomization and allocation to the nurses group (n = 147) or nurses + physician group (n = 151). The percentages of patients with critical events were 16.3 % (24 incidents in 147 transports) in the nurses group and 15.2 % (23 incidents in 151 transports) in the nurses + physician group (difference 1.1 %, two-sided 90 % CI [-5.9 to 8.1]). Critical events occurred in both groups at a higher than the expected (0-1 %) rate. In the nurses group consultations for physician assistance were requested in 8.2 % (12 in 147 transports), all of which were performed prior to transport., Conclusions: The number of patients with critical events did not markedly differ between critical care transports staffed by a critical care nurse and paramedic compared to a team including a critical care physician. However, as a result of an unexpected higher rate of critical events in both groups recorded by an electronic health record, non-inferiority of nurse-led interhospital critical transport could not be established ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN39701540 ).