Search

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]

Aim: To develop a parsimonious, shortened version of the Perceived Perioperative Competence Scale‐Revised for perioperative nurses to complete as part of their specialty training while retaining good psychometric properties. Design: A longitudinal online survey was adopted. Methods: A national sample of perioperative nurses from Australia completed an online survey at two different time points 6 months apart between February and October 2021. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for item reduction and construct validity, while criterion, convergent validity and internal consistency were examined. Results: Usable data for psychometric assessment were obtained from 485 operating room nurses at time 1 and 164 nurses at time 2. The original 40‐item revised scale was reduced to an 18‐item measure, maintaining its six domains. Cronbach's alpha for the 18‐item scale was.92 at time 1 and.90 at time 2. Scale validation demonstrated moderate to weak positive relationships in perceived competence scores relative to general self‐efficacy, years of operating room experience, postgraduate education and recency of training. Conclusions: Results suggest the 18‐item Perceived Perioperative Competence Scale‐Revised Short Form has initial robust psychometric properties and may be implemented in clinical settings as part of perioperative transition‐to‐practice, orientation programs and yearly professional development reviews. Implications for the Profession: This short‐form scale can help prepare perioperative nurses to demonstrate clinical competence in a climate of increasing professional demands using a valid measure of competence required in clinical practice. Impact: Short and validated scales of perioperative competence are needed in clinical practice. Assessment of practising operating room nurses' perceived competence is essential in quality care provision, workforce planning and human resource management. This study provides an 18‐item measure of the previously validated 40‐item Perceived Perioperative Competence Scale‐Revised. This scale can help provide an option for future testing of perioperative nurses' competence in clinical or research settings. Patient or Public Contribution: Perioperative nurses were involved in the design of the study, particularly in the assessment of validation of the tools used in the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore Registered Nurses' attitudes and behaviour towards patients' use of complementary therapies. Background: Despite high rates of use of complementary therapies by the general population, little is known of how nurses respond to patients' use of these therapies. Design: A two-phase sequential exploratory mixed methods design. Methods: Nineteen Registered Nurses working in Australia participated in a semi-structured interview in 2015-2016 and emerging themes informed the development of a quantitative survey instrument administered online nationwide in 2016. Findings: Emerging key themes "Promoting safe care"; "Seeking complementary therapies knowledge";" Supporting holistic health care"; and "Integrating complementary therapies in practice" were reflected in survey results. Survey responses (N = 614) revealed >90% agreement that complementary therapies align with a holistic view of health and that patients have the right to use them. Most nurses (77.5%) discussed complementary therapies with patients and 91.8% believed nurses should have some understanding of the area. One-third did not recommend complementary therapies and there was a lack of overall consensus as to whether these therapies should be integrated into nursing practice. Nurses with training in complementary therapies held more positive views than those without. Conclusion: Nurses were generally supportive of patients' interest in complementary therapies, although their primary concern was safety of the patient. Despite broad acceptance that nurses should have a basic understanding of complementary therapies, there was a lack of consensus about recommendation, integration into nursing practice and referral. Further research should explore how nurses can maintain safe, patient-centred care in the evolving pluralistic healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To report a study in Australian operating theatres of compliance by the anaesthetic team with best peripheral arterial catheter practice for blood gas sampling and infection prevention. Comparisons are made with research recommendations and Centres for Disease Control Guidelines. Background There is wide global usage of peripheral arterial catheters in the operating theatre for haemodynamic monitoring and blood gas analysis. Frequent blood sampling from arterial catheters can lead to statistically significant blood loss and provide an infective potential. Evidence-based research and clinical guidelines prescribe best practice. Design Cross-sectional descriptive survey Methods Data were collected in 2009 from 64 major Australian hospitals using a self-designed internet survey. Results/Findings Hand hygiene prior to catheter insertion was the only infection prevention practice entirely adherent with guidelines. The recommended ratio of discard to dead space volume of 2:1 to decrease unnecessary blood loss during blood gas sampling was reported by only 11 (17%) respondents. Less than 32 (50%) respondents used the preferred solution, chlorhexidine to disinfect the insertion site. Access ports were reported as 'never disinfected' before use by 30 (47%) respondents. Conclusion The complex operating theatre environment presents barriers, which contribute to non-adherence with guidelines. These barriers need to be identified to plan strategies for improvement. A quality audit tool is proposed for development by nurses in collaboration with the anaesthetic team, providing a needed method to assess ongoing compliance with best peripheral arterial catheter care. Further international research would test the generalizability of our Australian findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]