Search

Background Venous leg ulcer management in the UK varies significantly. Judgements made by nurses contribute to this variability and it is often assumed that specialist nurses make better judgements than non-specialist nurses. This paper compares the judgements of community tissue viability specialist nurses and community generalist nurses; specifically, the ways they use clinical information and their levels of accuracy. Objectives To compare specialist and non-specialist UK community nurses’ clinical information use when managing venous leg ulceration and their levels of accuracy when making diagnoses and judging the need for treatment. Design Judgement analysis. Setting UK community and primary care nursing services. Participants 18 community generalist nurses working in district (home) nursing teams and general practitioner services and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses. Methods Data were collected in 2011 and 2012. 18 community generalist nurses and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses made diagnostic and treatment judgements on 110 clinical scenarios and indicated their confidence in each of their judgements. Scenarios were generated from real patient cases and presented online using text and photographs. An expert panel made judgements, and reached consensus on the same scenarios. These judgements were used as a standard against which to compare the participants. Logistic regression models and correlational statistics were used to generate various indices of judgement “performance”: accuracy, consistency, confidence calibration and information use. Differences between groups of nurses with different levels of characteristics linked to expertise were explored using analysis of variance. Results Specialist nurses had similar cue usage to the generalist nurses but were more accurate when making diagnostic and treatment judgements. Conclusion It is not obvious why the tissue viability specialist nurses were more accurate. One possible reason might be the greater opportunities for ‘deliberate practice’ afforded to specialists. However, restricting aspects of practice only to specialist nurses is likely to hinder the judgement performance of generalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Nurses are often portrayed as possessing specific traits and dispositions associated with care and empathy. The assumption has been that possessing these traits makes nurses competent, engaged, and well suited to their job. This proposition has been mostly normative, and few studies have investigated how this plays out empirically. Objective The aims of this study were to investigate (a) whether possessing a personality trait related to empathy and care was more common among nursing students than students in teaching and social work programs and (b) whether nursing students possessing an affirming personality trait judged themselves to be more suited to their future work – understood as commitment to the profession – than students in teaching and social work. Design A cross-sectional survey design was used. Participants and setting All first-year students attending seven Norwegian universities and university colleges were invited to participate in the study. Of the 1675 students who participated in the survey, 527 were nursing students, 668 were students in teaching, and 480 were social work students. A response rate of 65 percent was achieved. Methods The survey was conducted by Oslo and Akershus University College in the autumn of 2012. Data collection methods included both a paper-and-pencil questionnaire and an online survey. Instruments used included Blau's Career Commitment Scale and Orlinsky and Rønnestad's Interpersonal Adjective Scale. Analysis of variance and regression analysis were performed on the data. Results Nursing students did not differ from students in teaching and social work programs in terms of the degree of affirming personality trait. Furthermore, the regression analysis revealed an equally strong association between having an affirming personality trait and being committed to the profession among all these student groups. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that the narrative of nursing students as individuals who possess a special personality characteristic does not entirely reflect reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As yet there is no firm evidence about the types of intervention that can reduce emergency room revisits. However, the literature on emergency room revisits suggests patient difficulties with managing their health problems and treatments after discharge may play a role. Objectives: We carried out a randomized trial of an emergency department-based nursing intervention, but results showed no reduction in revisits (primary outcome). This paper describes the secondary outcomes of the trial: patient perceptions of continuity of care, illness perceptions, self-care capacities, psychological symptoms and medication adherence 30 days after emergency room discharge. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. Settings: The trial was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary cardiac hospital in Montreal, Canada between November 2007 and March 2010. Participants: The study involved 203 patients, including 108 in the experimental group and 95 in the control group. Methods: The intervention included one nurse patient encounter before discharge and two phone calls in the 10 days after discharge. Participants provided data 30 days post-discharge on secondary outcomes potentially related to emergency department revisits. Results: Although, as previously reported, the intervention had no impact on the primary outcome of emergency department revisits, the present study demonstrated a significant positive effect on patients’ perceived continuity of care (p = .033), self-care capacities (p = .037), anxiety (p = .007) and depressive symptoms (p = .043), and the illness perceptions treatment control subscale (p = .037). No differences were found for other illness perception subscales or medication adherence (all p’s > .05). Conclusion: Although the intervention did not influence emergency department revisits it did improve secondary outcomes, suggesting pathways for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]