Search

Introduction: The role of the clinical nurse specialist is complex but is defined differently across the world. The role of clinical nurse specialist stoma care is undefined and it is uncertain what aspects of the role are included in the general day‐to‐day working role. Aims: The aim was to gain consensus opinion to answer the research question: 'What is the role of the clinical nurse specialist in stoma care?' Design: Delphi consensus. Methods: Previous data gained from a scoping review and expert consultation was utilized to form role statements. At a UK conference the 13 statements and 173 sub‐categories were voted upon. Consensus was agreed if 75% of voters voted agree or strongly agree. Two stages of voting occurred with results from the first vote being shared in the second voting session. Results: All 13 statement and most (150/193) statement sub‐categories reached consensus, with 20 sub‐categories added during voting session one. Conclusions: The four pillars of advanced practice were met by the 13 statements with clinical and education reaching higher consensus and agreement than leadership/management and research. The results of the consensus study provide a clearer articulation of the clinical nurse specialist stoma care role, which is complex and multifaceted which has not been described previously. Implications for Practice: Consideration of role evolution is made possible, to gain a greater expertise in the scope of practice it is necessary to include prescribing, management and research which could improve service delivery and optimize patient outcomes. There was no patient or public contribution, which in hindsight would have potentially improved the process but it was considered that patients might not recognize the full role of the nurse, understanding only aspects of the role that were patient‐centred. Patient or Public Contribution: No patients or public were involved in any aspect of this paper—in hindsight this might have been useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To construct a nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period. Design: A three‐round modified Delphi method was employed to capture the consensus of 22 panellists. Methods: The initial items in the nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period were developed based on the mini‐clinical evaluation exercise (mini‐CEX). A panel of 22 experts participated in this study. The panellists have more than 10 years of experience in either clinical anaesthesia, or post‐anesthesia nursing, or operating room nursing, or surgical intensive nursing. Between March and April 2023, the panellists evaluated and recommended revisions to the initial framework. Results: This study resulted in the development of a nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period. The initial version of the framework consisted of six dimensions with 27 items. Six items were modified after the first round of consultation. After the second round, five modifications and four deletions were made based on expert opinion. The third round resulted in a convergence of expert opinion. The framework, which consists of 24 items across five dimensions, was refined. The five dimensions are as follows: History‐taking, Physical assessment, Clinical judgement, Organizational efficiency and Humanistic concern. Conclusion: The nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period was reached consensus between the 22 experts' opinions. Implications for the profession and patient care: The assessment framework constructed in this study could be used for the process evaluation of post‐anesthesia nursing. The framework may guide perianesthesia nurses in the timely and effective assessment of patients during this critical phase of care. It may be used for perianesthesia nursing education or to evaluate nurses' assessment skills. Reporting method: The study is reported in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and Reporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) recommendations. Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study provides an overview of the literature to identify and map the types of available evidence on self‐supporting mobile applications used by nurses in wound care regarding their development, evaluation and outcomes for patients, nurses and the healthcare system. Design: Scoping review. Review Method: Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology was used. Data Sources: A search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (via EBSCO), Web of Science, LiSSa (Littérature Scientifique en Santé), Cochrane Wounds, Érudit and grey literature, between April and October 2022, updated in April 2023, to identify literature published in English and French. Results: Eleven studies from 14 publications met the inclusion criteria. Mostly descriptive, the included studies presented mobile applications that nurses used, among other things, to assess wounds and support clinical decision‐making. The results described how nurses were iteratively involved in the process of developing and evaluating mobile applications using various methods such as pilot tests. The three outcomes most frequently reported by nurses were as follows: facilitating care, documentation on file and access to evidence‐based data. Conclusion: The potential of mobile applications in wound care is within reach. Nurses are an indispensable player in the successful development of these tools. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: If properly developed and evaluated, mobile applications for wound care could enhance nursing practices and improve patient care. The development of ethical digital competence must be ensured during initial training and continued throughout the professional journey. Impact: We identified a dearth of studies investigating applications that work without Internet access. More research is needed on the development of mobile applications in wound care and their possible impact on nursing practice in rural areas and the next generation of nurses. Reporting Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis Extension for Scoping Review guidelines were used. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To identify insights for supporting people at risk of suicide in the community based on primary healthcare workers' experiences. Design: Qualitative descriptive design. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with fifteen primary healthcare workers employed by Japanese municipalities between August and October 2019. The data were subjected to qualitative descriptive analysis. Results: The analysis revealed eleven subthemes, clustered under the following three themes: (1) fostering 'opportunities for discovery' for people at risk of suicide by encompassing strategies such as increasing access to services and promoting a holistic understanding of the life cycle; (2) fostering 'meaningful connections' by searching for channels to reach the heart and taking approaches from different objectives; and (3) engaging in 'risk management', by understanding and coping with real‐life struggles and implementing timely crisis intervention. Conclusion: Not only direct care targeting suicide prevention but also holistic care that includes atypical perspectives such as 'approaches from different objectives' may provide important insights for supporting people with suicide risk. Implications for Practice: Beyond the limitations of existing suicide risk screening methods, this study highlights the importance of a holistic approach that sees people at risk of suicide in the context of their daily lives and aims to alleviate the difficulties in their lives that have brought them to the point of considering suicide. Impact: By describing support focused on the difficulties that people at risk of suicide face in their daily lives, this study identified insights for supporting people at risk of suicide in communities where screening and intervention are difficult. These findings will contribute to the relief of people at risk of suicide by stimulating suicide prevention measures in primary healthcare settings. Reporting Method: This study complied with the COREQ guidelines. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To develop a nurse‐led model of analgesia to manage post‐operative pain in the surgical neonate. Design: A four‐round e‐Delphi study was conducted from March to December 2022. Methods: An e‐Delphi method was used seeking a consensus of 70% or greater. Fifty‐one experts were invited to join the panel. Members consisted of multi‐disciplinary healthcare professionals who work in areas associated with neonatal care. In round 1, 49 statements relative to neonatal pain assessment and management were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to rate their level of agreeance on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Ratings equal to or greater than 4 represented agreement, 3 indicated uncertainty and 2 or less disagreement with the proposed statement. An opportunity for free‐text responses after each statement was provided. This iterative process continued for three rounds. In the fourth and final round, the completed model of neonatal nurse‐controlled analgesia was presented along with a further opportunity to provide feedback on the final version. Results: Four rounds of statements and voting were required to reach consensus on a model of neonatal nurse‐controlled analgesia. The model consists of criteria for use, over‐arching guidelines and three separate pathways based on an individual baby's pain assessment scores, need for pain relieving interventions and time‐lapsed post‐surgical procedure. Conclusion: A comprehensive model of neonatal nurse‐controlled analgesia, applicable to the Australasian context, was developed in collaboration with a group of neonatal experts. Impact: This study provides a multi‐modal family‐integrated model to manage neonatal post‐operative pain. By providing nurses with increased autonomy to assess and manage acute pain, this model has the potential to not only provide a more responsive and individualized approach to alleviate discomfort, but highlights the integral role of parent partnerships in the neonatal intensive care. Reporting Method: This study was reported in line with the Conducting and REporting of DElphi studies (CREDE) guidance on Delphi studies. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution was utilized for this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To obtain consensus on barriers and facilitators to nurse prescribing following its recent introduction in Spain. Design: A three round online Delphi survey and focus group. Methods: An exploratory method was used with three consecutive rounds of questionnaires based on anonymity and feedback, and a focus group. The study was carried out with primary care, specialized care, socio‐health care and manager nurses. Results: On the basis of the Delphi study that was conducted, a list of 15 barriers and 18 facilitators of nurse prescribing was obtained. However, no general consensus was found with respect to the prioritization of these barriers/facilitators. The analysis of the results of the focus group confirmed the information obtained from the Delphi study. The main barriers highlighted were dependence on the figure of the physician, insufficient training in pharmacology, a lack of institutional support and the limited list of products that could be prescribed. The key facilitators were academic knowledge and ongoing training and education, independence in the functions and responsibilities of the nursing profession, adaptation to new roles and autonomy in the case of chronic care processes. Conclusion: Nurses were generally positive about the introduction of nurse prescribing. The commitment of nurses to training and their accreditation as prescribers (internal forces) and health policy and nursing management (external forces) play a fundamental role in supporting the basis of nurse prescribing and ensuring that it is developed with the identified support resources, such as staff training and the provision of the materials necessary for its proper implementation, all with the aim of guaranteeing quality healthcare. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: Strong models of nurse prescribing are being considered globally to address population needs. The results can help the future implementation of non‐medical independent prescribing and provide guidance to the government and society on the interventions that can be used to consolidate it. Impact: What problem did the study address? By 2027, the world's population will receive more than 4.5 trillion doses of medicine each year. However, the WHO estimates a projected shortfall of 10 million health workers by 2030. Inadequacies with traditional physician‐led care systems mean that new approaches are imperative to maintain patient access to prescription medicines, with NP being a key element in this regard. In Catalonia (Spain), the accreditation process for nurses as prescribers was implemented in 2021. It is therefore of vital importance to question and consult the nurses themselves, the main promoters of the process, to find out their perceptions and thus be able to take them into consideration in the implementation process.What were the main findings? A total of 15 barriers and 17 facilitators were identified. The main perceived barriers are dependence on the figure of the physician, insufficient training in pharmacology during undergraduate studies and a lack of institutional support. The main perceived facilitators are academic knowledge and ongoing education and training, independence in nursing functions and responsibilities, and adaptation to new roles and tasks.Where and on whom will the research have an impact? These results can contribute to improving NP implementation in Spain and serve as a reference for other countries, especially where NP education and training have only recently been instigated or are in the planning process. Reporting Method: Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. SRQR. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate gynaecological patients' preferences and satisfaction regarding information provision, exploring enablers and barriers to information access. Design: A descriptive cross-sectional survey design was used. Methods: A total of 293 women accessing gynaecological services responded to the survey. Quantitative analysis included descriptive and inferential statistics. Content analysis was conducted on qualitative data. Results: Health professionals were the most common and preferred sources of gynaecological health information. Enablers to information provision included positive communication strategies by health professionals, participants having prior knowledge and doing their own research. Despite its widespread availability, only 24.2% of women preferred the internet as an information source. Poor communication and inadequate information provision were identified as barriers to information access. Statistically significant associations were identified between location of residence, education level, year of birth, diagnostic group and health information preferences. Recommendations from women included improved communication strategies, system changes and provision of individualized information. Conclusion: Health professionals are central to women accessing information about gynaecological diagnoses. Areas for improvement include communication strategies, facilitating access to internet-based resources for information and consideration of women's preferences when providing health information. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: Consumer co-design of gynaecological health information and communication training for health professionals is recommended. Improved communication and facilitated use of internet-based resources may improve women's understanding of information. Impact: • This study explored gynaecological patients' preferences and satisfaction regarding information provision, exploring enablers and barriers to information access. • It was found that gynaecological patients preferred individualized information provided to them directly by health professionals and despite its widespread availability, the internet is an underutilized health information resource. • These findings are applicable to health professionals and patients utilizing tertiary gynaecological health services in Australia but may be generalized if demographic data aligns with other jurisdictions. Reporting Method: The STROBE reporting method was used in the preparation of the manuscript. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]