Search

Introduction: Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence that can help guide evidence‐informed decisions in nursing practice, education, and even health policy. Systematic review publications have increased from a sporadic few in 1980s to more than 10,000 systematic reviews published every year and around 30,000 registered in prospective registries. Methods: A cross‐sectional design and a variety of data sources were triangulated to identify the journals from which systematic reviews would be evaluated for adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 reporting guidelines and scope. Specifically, this study used the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines to assess the reporting of the introduction, methods, information sources and search strategy, study selection process, quality/bias assessments, and results and discussion aspects of the included systematic reviews. Results: Upon review of the 215 systematic reviews published in 10 top‐tier journals in the field of nursing in 2019 and 2020, this study identified several opportunities to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in the context of the 2020 PRISMA statement. Areas of priority for reporting include the following key areas: (1) information sources, (2) search strategies, (3) study selection process, (4) bias reporting, (5) explicit discussion of the implications to policy, and lastly, the need for (6) prospective protocol registration. Discussion: The use of the PRISMA 2020 guidelines by authors, peer reviewers, and editors can help to ensure the transparent and detailed reporting of systematic reviews published in the nursing literature. Clinical Relevance: Systematic reviews are considered strong research evidence that can guide evidence‐based practice and even clinical decision‐making. This paper addresses some common methodological and process issues among systematic reviews that can guide clinicians and practitioners to be more critical in appraising research evidence that can shape nursing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which academic promotion and tenure (APT) criteria and guidelines in schools of nursing recognize predatory publishing. This assessment included an analysis of APT documents looking specifically for guidance about predatory publications by faculty in schools of nursing. Design: This study used a cross‐sectional, descriptive design and was conducted in 2020. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from two sources. Data were extracted from APT documents for 92 research‐intensive universities found online and specifically focused on documents for universities and for schools of nursing in the United States. Interviews were conducted with a subsample of academic administrators (n = 10) from selected schools. Findings: The majority (57%; n = 50) of APT documents reviewed addressed quality of the journals in which faculty publish. However, very nonspecific terms, such as "high quality" or "peer reviewed" were used. None of the documents reviewed (n = 88) included any reference to predatory journals. Deans who were interviewed validated the analysis of the APT documents. While most deans reported faculty were aware of predatory journals and the risks of publishing in them, formal guidelines for consequences for publishing in predatory journals were not developed or available. Conclusion: This study examined how schools of nursing in research‐intensive universities address the issue of predatory journals. APT criteria do not provide guidance to faculty and promotion and tenure committees about issues related to predatory publications as low‐quality publication outlets. Recommendations for APT committees, mentors, and faculty are provided. Clinical relevance: Clinicians rely on researchers, many of whom are faculty, to publish rigorous studies that produce evidence they can translate into practice. One measure of the quality of a study's findings is where the paper is published and reflects the level of peer review it has been through. Faculty who publish in predatory journals may not have had their work reviewed by experts; evidence produced may or may not be adequate for translation to guide nursing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of Family History in the Electronic Health Record and to identify opportunities to advance the contributions of nurses in obtaining, updating and assessing family history in order to improve the health of all individuals and populations. Organizing Construct The article presents an overview of the obstacles to charting Family History within the Electronic Health Record and recommendations for using specific Family History tools and core Family History data sets. Methods Opportunities to advance nursing contributions in obtaining, updating, and assessing family history in order to improve the health of all individuals were identified. These opportunities are focused within the area of promoting the importance of communication within families and between healthcare providers to obtain, document, and update family histories. Findings Nurses can increase awareness of existing resources that can guide collection of a comprehensive and accurate family history and facilitate family discussions. In this paper, opportunities to advance nursing contributions in obtaining, updating, and assessing family history in order to improve the health of all individuals were identified. Conclusions Aligned with the clinical preparation of nurses, family health should be used routinely by nurses for risk assessment and to help inform patient and family members on screening, health promotion, and disease prevention. The quality of family health information is critical in order to leverage the use of genomic healthcare information and derive new knowledge about disease biology, treatment efficacy, and drug safety. These actionable steps need to be performed in the context of promoting evidence-based applications of family history that will be essential for implementing personalized genomic healthcare approaches and disease prevention efforts. Clinical Relevance Family health history is one of the most important tools for identifying the risk of developing rare and chronic conditions, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, and represents an integration of disease risk from genetic, environmental, and behavioral/lifestyle factors. In fact, family history has long been recognized as a strong independent risk factor for disease and is the current best practice used in clinical practice to guide risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Internationally, the adoption of technology into residential aged care settings has been slow and fraught with multiple challenges for residents, staff and service providers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability, efficiency, and quality of health information system implementation into aged care. Methods: Three‐stage, mixed‐methods participatory action research, concurrent with the natural experiment of a co‐designed health information system implementation into a 169‐bed aged care home in Australia. Data were collected pre‐, during, and post implementation between 2019 and 2021. Qualitative data included focus groups, interviews, and observations. Quantitative data included work observations, pedometers, record audits, incident reports and staff and resident surveys. There were 162 participants composed of 65 aged care residents, 90 staff, and 7 managers/consultants. Results: Improved work efficiency included reduced staff time searching for information (6%); reduced nurse time on documentation (20.4% to 6.4%), and 25% less steps. Documentation improvement included resident assessments (68% to 96%); resident‐focused goals (56% to 88%) and evaluations (31% to 88%). The staff reported being better equipped to manage the 'delicacies of dignity'. Conclusion: Implementation of a health information system into a residential aged care facility was associated with improved resident‐focused care and staff efficiency. Clinical relevance: Technology can support nurses and care staff to spend more time with residents in residential aged care homes, improve the quality of resident care, and assist meeting regulatory reporting requirements. Flexible and tailored co‐design strategies can enhance both effectiveness and success of technology implementation into residential aged care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Nursing documentation provides an important indicator of the quality of care provided for hospitalized patients. This study assessed the quality of nursing documentation on medical wards at three hospitals in Jamaica. Methods This cross-sectional study audited a multilevel stratified sample of 245 patient records from three type B hospitals. An audit instrument which assessed nursing documentation of client history, biological data, client assessment, nursing standards, discharge planning, and teaching facilitated data collection. Descriptive statistics were conducted using IBM SPSS, Version 19 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). Findings Records from three hospitals (Hospital 1, n = 119, 48.6%; Hospital 2, n = 56, 22.9%; Hospital 3, n = 70, 28.6%) were audited. Documented evidence of the patient's chief complaint (81.6%), history of present illness (78.8%), past health (79.2%), and family health (11.0%) were noted; however, less than a third of the dockets audited recorded adequate assessment data (e.g., occupation or living accommodations of patients). The audit noted 90% of records had a physical assessment completed within 24 hr of admission and entries timed, dated, and signed by a nurse. Less than 5% of dockets had evidence of patient teaching, and 13.5% had documented evidence of discharge planning conducted within 72 hr of admission. Conclusions This study highlights the weakness in nursing documentation and the need for increased training and continued monitoring of nursing documentation at the hospitals studied. Additional research regarding the factors that affect nursing documentation practice could prove useful. Clinical Relevance The study provides valuable information for the development of strategic risk management programs geared at improving the quality of care delivered to clients and presents an opportunity for nurse leaders to implement structured interventions geared at improving nursing documentation in Jamaica. In light of Jamaica's epidemiologic transition of chronic diseases, gaps in nurses' documentation of client assessment, patient teaching, and discharge planning should be addressed with urgency. Patient teaching and discharge planning enable the clients to participate more effectively in their health maintenance process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore nurses’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to adoption of an electronic health record (EHR) in a rural Midwestern hospital. Design: This study was a qualitative, descriptive design. The Staggers and Parks Nurse-Computer Interaction Framework was used to guide directed content analysis. Methods: Eleven registered nurses from oncology and medical-surgical units were interviewed using three semistructured interview questions. Predetermined codes and operational definitions were developed from the Staggers and Parks framework. Narrative data were analyzed by each member of the research team and group consensus on coding was reached through group discussions. Findings: Participants were able to identify computer-related, nurse-related, and contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation of EHR. In addition, two distinct patterns of perceptions and acceptance were identified. Conclusions: The Staggers and Parks Nurse-Computer Interaction framework was found to be useful in identifying computer, nurse, and contextual characteristics that act as facilitators or barriers to adoption of an EHR system. Acceptance and use of an EHR are enhanced when barriers are managed and facilitators are supported. Clinical Relevance: Understanding and management of facilitators and barriers to EHR adoption may impact nurses’ ability to provide and document nursing care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To design optimal search strategies for locating sound therapy studies and review articles in CINAHL in the year 2000. Design and Methods: An analytic survey was conducted, comparing hand searches of 75 journals with retrievals from CINAHL for 5,020 candidate search terms and 17,900 combinations for therapy and 5,977 combinations for review articles. All articles were rated with purpose and quality indicators. Candidate search strategies were used in CINAHL, and the retrievals were compared with results of the hand searches. The proposed search strategies were treated as “diagnostic tests” for sound studies and the manual review of the literature was treated as the “gold standard.” Operating characteristics of the search strategies were calculated. Findings: Of the 1,383 articles about treatment, 506 (36.6%) met basic criteria for scientific merit and 127 (17.9%) of the 711 articles classified as a review met the criteria for systematic reviews. For locating sound treatment studies, a three-term strategy maximized sensitivity at 99.4% but with compromised specificity at 58.3%, and a two-term strategy maximized specificity at 98.5% but with compromised sensitivity at 52.0%. For detecting systematic reviews, a three-term strategy maximized sensitivity at 91.3% while keeping specificity high at 95.4%, and a single-term strategy maximized specificity at 99.6% but with compromised sensitivity at 42.5%. Three-term search strategies optimizing sensitivity and specificity achieved these values over 91% for detecting sound treatment studies and over 76% for detecting systematic reviews. Conclusions: Search strategies combining indexing terms and text words can achieve high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving sound treatment studies and review articles in CINAHL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]