Search

Aim and objective: To explore the accuracy with which nursing students can identify the fundamentals of care. Background: A challenge facing nursing is ensuring the fundamentals of care are provided with compassion and in a timely manner. How students perceive the importance of the fundamentals of care may be influenced by the content and delivery of their nursing curriculum. As the fundamentals of care play a vital role in ensuring patient safety and quality care, it is important to examine how nursing students identify these care needs. Design: Cross‐sectional descriptive design. Methods: A total of 398 nursing students (pre‐ and postregistration) from universities in Sweden, England, Japan, Canada and Australia participated. The Fundamentals of Care Framework guided this study. A questionnaire containing three care scenarios was developed and validated. Study participants identified the fundamentals of care for each of the scenarios. All responses were rated and analysed using ANOVA. Results: The data illustrate certain fundamentals of care were identified more frequently, including communication and education; comfort and elimination, whilst respecting choice, privacy and dignity were less frequently identified. The ability to identify all the correct care needs was low overall across the pre‐ and postregistration nursing programmes in the five universities. Significant differences in the number of correctly identified care needs between some of the groups were identified. Conclusions: Nursing students are not correctly identifying all a patient's fundamental care needs when presented with different care scenarios. Students more frequently identifying physical care needs and less frequently psychosocial and relational needs. The findings suggest educators may need to emphasise and integrate all three dimensions. Relevance to clinical practice: To promote students' ability to identify the integrated nature of the fundamentals of care, practising clinicians and nurse educators need to role model and incorporate all the fundamental care needs for their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Punishment serves a wide variety of functions, including retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and behavioural shaping to comply with cultural norms. These uses, and the appropriateness of various forms of punishment, have been widely debated from practical, legal and ethical standpoints. Research demonstrates cross-cultural differences in the prevalence of types of punishment and societal attitudes towards punitive behaviour; these are known to exist in home, educational, work and sports environments. The present study used a 2 × 2 × 2 design in which Japanese and English football (soccer) players and coaches read a vignette describing a coach who used either physical or verbal punishment in response to a troublesome player. Participants then rated the coach on items measuring acceptance of the coach's behaviour and perceptions of his popularity. The results showed that the English and Japanese coaches and players viewed the coach similarly when he used verbal punishment. However, statistical interactions revealed that the English groups saw the coach as significantly more popular and acceptable when he used verbal rather than physical punishment, whereas the Japanese participants did not distinguish between the two forms of punishment. The Japanese group also scored higher on scales measuring Sensitivity to Punishment (SP) and Attitudes towards Punishment. The results are interpreted in terms of cross-cultural differences in these characteristics as well as to related variations in concepts of individualism versus collectivism, shame and guilt, and attitudes towards leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Psychiatric services in Japan and England are compared using government statistics. In Japan, the number of in-patients per 100,000 population has increased from the 1950s, while that of England has decreased since 1954. Since 1972 the prevalence of in-patients has been higher in Japan than in England. The admission rate is lower in Japan than in England, and there are more long-stay patients. Most Japanese in-patients are admitted compulsorily, whereas most are admitted voluntarily in England. The attendance at out-patient clinics is higher in Japan than in England, but there are far fewer day-hospital places in Japan. Differing government policies are the main reason for these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]