Search

BACKGROUND: Survey items on the Healthy Work Environment Scales (HWES) for nurse leaders (NLs) and direct care nurses (DCNs) were developed using statements from 2 qualitative research studies conducted in a healthcare system. PURPOSE: The purposes of 2 quantitative studies were to develop items on the HWES for NLs and DCNs, to assess the validity and reliability of these new tools, and to describe the NLs and DCNs perceptions of a healthy work environment (HWE) using nonexperimental descriptive designs. METHODS: Each research study had 2 separate phases. In phase 1 of the studies, NLs and DCNs assigned each item to 1 of the 8 characteristics of an HWE to assess face validity. Content validity was determined by calculating the scale content validity and item content validity indices. Based on these results, the items were revised or deleted to obtain version 3 of both tools. In phase 2 of the studies, principal component analysis (PCA) assessed the validity of the tools, Cronbach's a served as the test for reliability, and the NLs and DCNs perceptions of an HWE were measured. RESULTS: Samples included 314 subjects for the HWES for NL study and 986 subjects for the HWES for DCN study. Principal component analysis for the HWES for NLs (version 3) revealed 40 items comprising 4 components, and PCA for the HWES for DCNs (version 3) revealed 39 items comprising 5 components. Internal consistencies of the tools were 0.974 and 0.957, respectively. Based on the findings of these studies, the tools demonstrated promising psychometric properties to measure a HWE in acute care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Survey items on the Healthy Work Environment Scales (HWES) for nurse leaders (NLs) and direct care nurses (DCNs) were developed using statements from 2 qualitative research studies conducted in a healthcare system. PURPOSE: The purposes of 2 quantitative studies were to develop items on the HWES for NLs and DCNs, to assess the validity and reliability of these new tools, and to describe the NLs and DCNs perceptions of a healthy work environment (HWE) using nonexperimental descriptive designs. METHODS: Each research study had 2 separate phases. In phase 1 of the studies, NLs and DCNs assigned each item to 1 of the 8 characteristics of an HWE to assess face validity. Content validity was determined by calculating the scale content validity and item content validity indices. Based on these results, the items were revised or deleted to obtain version 3 of both tools. In phase 2 of the studies, principal component analysis (PCA) assessed the validity of the tools, Cronbach's α served as the test for reliability, and the NLs and DCNs perceptions of an HWE were measured. RESULTS: Samples included 314 subjects for the HWES for NL study and 986 subjects for the HWES for DCN study. Principal component analysis for the HWES for NLs (version 3) revealed 40 items comprising 4 components, and PCA for the HWES for DCNs (version 3) revealed 39 items comprising 5 components. Internal consistencies of the tools were 0.974 and 0.957, respectively. Based on the findings of these studies, the tools demonstrated promising psychometric properties to measure a HWE in acute care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses updates for healthcare providers facing difficulty in decision making for emergency cardiovascular care, as stated in the U.S. nonprofit organization American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. An overview on the ethical principles surrounding autonomy and decision making for patient care, is provided. Also investigated is the advancement in resuscitation efforts and their ethical implications.

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations on basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 22 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The evidence reviews include 16 systematic reviews, 5 scoping reviews, and 1 evidence update. Per agreement within the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, new or revised treatment recommendations were only made after a systematic review. Systematic reviews were performed for the following topics: dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest, use of a firm surface for CPR, sequence for starting CPR (compressions-airway-breaths versus airway-breaths-compressions), CPR before calling for help, duration of CPR cycles, hand position during compressions, rhythm check timing, feedback for CPR quality, alternative techniques, public access automated external defibrillator programs, analysis of rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstruction, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, drowning, and harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest. The topics that resulted in the most extensive task force discussions included CPR during transport, CPR before calling for help, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, feedback for CPR quality, and analysis of rhythm during chest compressions. After discussion of the scoping reviews and the evidence update, the task force prioritized several topics for new systematic reviews.

The "2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" increased the focus on methods to ensure that high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed in all resuscitation attempts. There are 5 critical components of high-quality CPR: minimize interruptions in chest compressions, provide compressions of adequate rate and depth, avoid leaning between compressions, and avoid excessive ventilation. Although it is clear that high-quality CPR is the primary component in influencing survival from cardiac arrest, there is considerable variation in monitoring, implementation, and quality improvement. As such, CPR quality varies widely between systems and locations. Victims often do not receive high-quality CPR because of provider ambiguity in prioritization of resuscitative efforts during an arrest. This ambiguity also impedes the development of optimal systems of care to increase survival from cardiac arrest. This consensus statement addresses the following key areas of CPR quality for the trained rescuer: metrics of CPR performance; monitoring, feedback, and integration of the patient's response to CPR; team-level logistics to ensure performance of high-quality CPR; and continuous quality improvement on provider, team, and systems levels. Clear definitions of metrics and methods to consistently deliver and improve the quality of CPR will narrow the gap between resuscitation science and the victims, both in and out of the hospital, and lay the foundation for further improvements in the future.

Optimizing the links in the Chain of Survival improves outcomes and saves lives. The use of evidence-based education and implementation strategies will allow organizations and communities to strengthen these links in the most effective and efficient manner.