Search

Aim: To explore the satisfaction and experiences of women and staff with the BSOTS in an Australian hospital. Design: Cross‐sectional descriptive survey. Methods: Surveys were distributed to women and staff between February and May 2022. Survey questions reflected satisfaction with triage and provision of care under the BSOTS system (for women) and confidence in using the BSOTS system and its impact on triage‐related care (for staff). Survey data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and qualitative responses were analysed using content analysis. Results: There were 50 women and 40 staff (midwives and doctors) survey respondents. Most women were satisfied with triage wait times, the verbal information they received and the time it took for them to receive care. Nearly all midwife participants indicated they had high knowledge and confidence in using the BSOTS. Most staff indicated that the BSOTS supported the accurate assessment of women and had benefits for women, staff and the hospital. Conclusion: The findings showed that women and staff were satisfied with receiving and providing care in a maternity triage setting under the BSOTS system. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Implementing standardized maternity triage approaches such as the BSOTS in health settings delivering care to pregnant women is recommended for improving flow of care and perceptions of care quality by women. Impact: Quality of maternity triage processes is likely to impact the satisfaction of women attending services and the staff providing care. The BSOTS was shown to improve maternity triage processes and was associated with satisfaction of women and staff. Maternity settings can benefit from implementing triage approaches such as the BSOTS as it standardizes and justifies the care provided to women. This is likely to result in satisfaction of women and staff engaged in maternity triage and improve the birth outcomes of women and babies. Reporting Method: The reporting of this paper has followed SQUIRE guidelines. Patient or Public Contribution: Women engaged with maternity services were participants in the study but did not contribute to the design, conduct or publication of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

scott k., white k., johnson c. & roydhouse j.k. (2011) Knowledge and skills of cancer clinical trials nurses in Australia. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(5), 1111-1121. Abstract Aims. This paper is a report of the development and testing of a questionnaire measuring knowledge and skills of cancer clinical trials nurse in Australia. Background. The role of cancer clinical trials nurse, widely acknowledged as an integral member of the clinical research team, has evolved in recent years. Elements of the clinical trials nurse role in cancer have previously been described. To evaluate specific cancer clinical trials nurse educational and training needs, the development of a valid and reliable tool is required. Methods. In 2009, a study was conducted in three stages. Stage I: questionnaire development and pilot testing; stage II: focus group; stage III: national survey. Internal consistency reliability testing and multi-trait analysis of item convergent/divergent validity were employed. Regression analysis was used to identify predictors of clinical trials nurse knowledge and skills. Results. The national survey was a 48-item questionnaire, measuring six clinical trial knowledge and seven skills sub-scales. Of 61 respondents, 90% were women, with mean age 43 years, 19 years as a Registered Nurse and 5 years as a cancer clinical trials nurse. Self-reported knowledge and skills were satisfactory to good. Internal consistency reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha: knowledge = 0·98; skills = 0·90). Criteria for item convergent/divergent validity were met. Number of years as cancer clinical trials nurse was positively related to self-reported knowledge and skills. Conclusion. Preliminary data suggest that the national survey is reliable and valid. Data have contributed to better understanding the knowledge and skills of cancer clinical trials nurse in Australia and development of a postgraduate course in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]