Search

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake., Author(s): Sonia O. Labeau [sup.1] [sup.2], Elsa Afonso [sup.2] [sup.3], Julie Benbenishty [sup.4], Bronagh Blackwood [sup.5], Carole Boulanger [sup.6], Stephen J. Brett [sup.7], Silvia Calvino-Gunther [sup.8], Wendy Chaboyer [sup.9], Fiona [...]

Background Aim Study Design Results Conclusions Relevance to Clinical Practice Nurses accompany patients throughout the breaking bad news process.The aim of the research was to compare neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nurses and well‐baby nursery (WBN) nurses on their role, barriers and experiences in breaking bad news to parents/relatives during hospitalization.A cross‐sectional comparative study.Two medical centres in Israel were employed. A 39‐item questionnaire was distributed with 140 nurses participating in the study. STROBE Checklist was used. A total of 140 nurses participated in this study. There was no significant overall difference (p ≤ .45) between NICU and WBN nurses in their perception of their role in breaking bad news. Differences were found in barriers to the role which included a lack of information, lack of time and communication issues. No differences were found in the nurses' experiences in breaking bad news. NICU and WBN nurses reported that they received no support (n = 40, 58.8%; n = 45, 64.3%, respectively). No breaking bad news specialty team existed in either unit (NICU: n = 64, 91.4%; n = 60, 87.0%).Nurses in the WBN and NICU are involved in breaking bad news. The role of the nurse has not been fully acknowledged making it difficult to perform. Nurses' experiences in breaking bad news were varied. Nurses facing challenges should be provided guidance and support. This needs to be implemented.The role played by nurses in breaking bad news has not been fully acknowledged making it difficult to perform. Nurses need to receive formal training and support in order to improve this practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Objective To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols. Design Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. Setting Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. Methods Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers. Results Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n  = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n  = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n  = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n  = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [ n  = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289–9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions. Conclusion Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9-27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6-16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3-3.3). Conclusion Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat., Author(s): Sonia O. Labeau [sup.1] [sup.2], Elsa Afonso [sup.2] [sup.3], Julie Benbenishty [sup.4], Bronagh Blackwood [sup.5], Carole Boulanger [sup.6], Stephen J. Brett [sup.7], Silvia Calvino-Gunther [sup.8], Wendy Chaboyer [sup.9], Fiona [...]

Background: Scar severity and scar viewing are known to affect body image. The literature is lacking on the relationship between body image and surgical scar assessment. The aims of this study were to compare patients from 3 different surgical departments in terms of body image and scar assessment at discharge, in comparison with nurses' scar assessment, and 3 months post‐surgery. In addition, the research examined age and gender in relation to the main variables. Methods: A longitudinal, comparative, correlational study was conducted using an instrument which included a health history, a nurses scar assessment tool and a patient scar assessment tool at hospital discharge, as well as a body image tool used both at discharge and at 3 months' post‐surgery. The 10‐item body image scale was comprised of affective items, behavioural items and cognitive items. The STROCSS 2019 checklist is used. Results: 75 patients were studied who were mostly male (68.0%) with a mean age of 59 and married (77.3%). The sample distribution of departments included 30.7% cardiothoracic, 29.3% neurosurgery and 40% urology. Cardiothoracic patients displayed a significant negative body image pre‐surgery compared to post‐surgery. Neurosurgical patients' scar assessments were significantly higher than nurses' assessments with no differences found in the other departments. Conclusions: The healthcare team needs to consider engaging patients in post‐surgery discussions concerning scarring and body image. The results of this study revealed that expectations in both clinician and patient participants need to be assessed and evaluated for congruency in order to offer a greater patient‐focused peri‐operative experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]