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 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]

Aims The aim of this study was to develop the Patient Participation in Pressure injury Prevention ( PPPIP) scale and undertake initial testing of some of its psychometric properties. Background Clinical practice guidelines recommend patient involvement in pressure injury prevention. There is some evidence that patients are willing to participate in this activity, but there are currently no instruments to measure this participation. Design This methodological study used data collected as part of a cluster randomized trial to develop and test the PPPIP scale. Methods A sample of 688 of patients with complete PPPIP scale data was used. A stratified random subsample, (Subsample A) was created and the remainder became Subsample B. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha reliability were undertaken in Subsample A. Confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha reliability were undertaken in Subsample B. Data collection occurred between June 2014 - May 2015. Results In Subsample A ( n = 320), inter-item correlations, item total correlations met the acceptance criteria and an exploratory factor analysis identified a one factor solution. In Subsample B ( n = 368), the confirmatory factor analysis supported this one factor. In both subsamples, the Cronbach's alpha was 0·86. Conclusion This study provides preliminary evidence of acceptable reliability and validity of the PPPIP scale in two subsamples of hospitalized patients who had limited mobility. It may be used in research and quality improvement activities. As a better conceptual understanding of patient participation emerges, the PPPIP scale may require refinement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]