Search

Accessible summary: What is known on this subject?: The physical health of people with serious mental illness (SMI) is an issue of growing concern in New Zealand and internationally.Metabolic syndrome is prevalent among people with severe mental illness and increases the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes.No previous international research has investigated rates of metabolic monitoring in specialist mental health services and in primary care. What this paper adds to existing knowledge?: Rates of metabolic monitoring are low in this specialist mental health service and in primary care.Primary care nurses are positive in their views of their role in providing care for people with mental illness, and would value further education in this area. What are the implications for practice?: Services need to consider ways in which nurses can be supported to improve rates of metabolic monitoring.Guidelines may have a role to play in improved monitoring but need service‐level support in order to be effective. Introduction: People with serious mental illness experience significant disparities in their physical health compared with the general population. One indicator of health impairment is metabolic syndrome, which increases the likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes. No international studies have reported both primary care and mental health nurses' rates of metabolic monitoring among people with serious mental illness, and no New Zealand studies have investigated rates of metabolic monitoring. Aim: To evaluate metabolic monitoring practices within one of New Zealand's 20 district health board regions. Method: An audit of clinical records in primary care (n = 46) and secondary care (n = 47) settings and a survey of practice nurses were conducted. A survey was sent to 127 practice nurses with a response rate of 19% (n = 24). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Rates of metabolic monitoring were low in both services. Survey participants expressed positive views towards physical health monitoring and confidence in relating to mental health consumers. Rates of treatment of metabolic abnormalities were low, and communication between primary and secondary services was limited. Conclusion: Despite existence of guidelines and protocols, metabolic monitoring rates in both primary and secondary health services are low. Incorporating metabolic monitoring systems into service delivery, supported by appropriate tools and resourcing, is essential to achieve better clinical outcomes for people experiencing mental illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Historically, it has been reported that new graduates make limited use of their clinical assessment skills, yet these form the basis for making nursing decisions and selecting all nursing interventions. Aims and objectives: To explore new graduates' preparedness for, and confidence with, clinical assessment and their reliance on electronic monitoring. To identify barriers that hinder, and strategies that enable, clinical assessment. Design: A mixed‐method study comprising a cross‐sectional, quantitative survey and qualitative data, gathered using the World Café method. Methods: Data were collected from volunteers (n = 137) of all new graduates (n = 160) working in adult settings for a New Zealand district health board over a 1‐year period. A paper‐based survey explored use of clinical assessment, using a five‐point Likert scale. Qualitative data comprised written records of group discussions and individual responses to four questions with thematic analysis of results. A STROBE checklist was used. Results: Most (n = 128) new graduates agreed/strongly agreed that clinical assessment was part of their role. Most (n = 119) agreed/strongly agreed that assessing patients by technology alone was inadequate. Thirty‐six did not agree/strongly agree that they were well‐prepared to perform clinical assessment. Forty‐one did not agree/strongly agree that they were confident to perform clinical assessment, particularly those aged ≥30 years. Factors limiting use of clinical assessment were lack of time, knowledge, skill, confidence, reliance on doctors and an unsupportive work environment. Factors that would enhance clinical assessment involved increased supervision by experienced staff, provision of short courses and more in‐service education on clinical assessment. Conclusions: New graduates acknowledged that clinical assessment was part of their role and involved more than electronic monitoring. However, many lacked confidence and preparedness for clinical assessment in their work area, particularly those aged ≥30 years, potentially limiting clinical assessment use. Supportive changes, including short courses to revise clinical assessment skills and supervision of workplace‐specific clinical assessments, could help new graduates more confidently and efficiently assimilate clinical assessment into their practice. Relevance to Clinical Practice: This research identified reasons that caused a cohort of new graduates to make limited use of their clinical assessment skills. It also reports the practical solutions they considered would help them increase their use of clinical assessment and thus support their decision‐making in nursing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to identify behaviours and cues that nurses recognise as indications of unsafe practice, perceived factors that contribute to unsafe practice and actions nurses take in response. Design: Cross‐sectional survey. Methods: National cross‐sectional survey of a random sample of registered nurses (n = 231) in New Zealand, in 2017–2018. The STROBE Checklist was used to report this study. Results: Nurses reported a high rate of episodes of unsafe practices and recognised a range of behaviours and cues that alerted them to the potential for unsafe practice. Several organisational issues were perceived to contribute to unsafe practice occurring. The reporting of episodes of unsafe practice and perceived organisational support was low for nurses compared with managers. Conclusion: Failure to recognise and respond to unsafe practice may indicate a tolerance for substandard practice by individual nurses, or by the organisation. Nurses who recognise unsafe practice must be supported by the organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]