Search

Aim(s): To identify, synthesise and map systematic reviews of the effectiveness of nursing interventions undertaken in a neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery. Design: This scoping review was conducted according to the JBI scoping review framework. Methods: Review included systematic reviews that evaluated any nurse‐initiated interventions that were undertaken in an NICU or SCN setting. Studies that reported one or more positive outcomes related to the nursing interventions were only considered for this review. Each outcome for nursing interventions was rated a 'certainty (quality) of evidence' according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria. Data Sources: Systematic reviews were sourced from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis for reviews published until February 2023. Results: A total of 428 articles were identified; following screening, 81 reviews underwent full‐text screening, and 34 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Multiple nursing interventions reporting positive outcomes were identified and were grouped into seven categories. Respiratory 7/34 (20%) and Nutrition 8/34 (23%) outcomes were the most reported categories. Developmental care was the next most reported category 5/34 (15%) followed by Thermoregulation, 5/34 (15%) Jaundice 4/34 (12%), Pain 4/34 (12%) and Infection 1/34 (3%). Conclusions: This review has identified nursing interventions that have a direct positive impact on neonatal outcomes. However, further applied research is needed to transfer this empirical knowledge into clinical practice. Implications for the profession and/or patient care: Implementing up‐to‐date evidence on effective nursing interventions has the potential to significantly improving neonatal outcomes. Patient or public contribution: No patient or public involvement in this scoping review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible Summary: What is known on the subject?: Well conducted randomized controlled trials provide the highest level of evidence of effectiveness of healthcare interventions, including those delivered by mental health nurses.Trials have been conducted over the years but there has not been a comprehensive review since 2005, and never one including studies conducted outside the UK. What the paper adds to existing knowledge?: The paper provides a comprehensive overview of results from randomized controlled trials of mental health nurse‐delivered interventions conducted in the UK, Ireland, US, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada and reported 2005 to 2020.It highlights that the trial evidence is limited and offers only partial evidence for interventions that are central to mental health nursing practice. What are the implications for practice?: Much mental health nursing practice is not supported by the highest level trial evidence. Mental health nurses need to carefully select evidence on which to base their practice both from the mental health nursing literature and beyond.Mental health nurses and other stakeholders should demand greater investment in trials to strengthen the evidence base. Introduction: Nurses are the largest professional disciplinary group working in mental health services and have been involved in numerous trials of nursing‐specific and multidisciplinary interventions. Systematic appraisal of relevant research findings is rare. Aim: To review trials from the core Anglosphere (UK, US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand) published from 2005 to 2020. Method: A systematic review reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses. Comprehensive electronic database searches were conducted. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of mental health nurse‐delivered interventions conducted in relevant countries. The risk of bias was independently assessed. Synthesis involved integration of descriptive statistics of standardized metrics and study bias. Results: Outcomes from 348 between‐group comparisons were extracted from K = 51 studies (N = 11,266 participants), Standardized effect sizes for 68 (39 very small/small, 29 moderate/large) statistically significant outcomes from 30 studies were calculable. All moderate/large effect sizes were at risk of bias. Discussion: Trial evidence of effective mental health nurse‐delivered interventions is limited. Many studies produced few or no measurable benefits; none demonstrated improvements related to personal recovery. Implications for Practice: Mental health nurses should look beyond gold standard RCT evidence, and to evidence‐based interventions that have not been trialled with mental health nurse delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study aimed to profile the community nurse in Australia. Background: The need for nurses in the community health care sector is increasing in response to shorter hospital stays, an aging population and chronic disease. The increase in demand has not been followed by appropriate workforce planning, leading to structural issues and lack of qualified nursing workforce in the community sector. Evaluation: MEDLINE and ProQuest Public Health and grey literature were searched for records published between 2010 and 2020 relative to the profile of the community nurse in Australia. Twenty‐five records (21 publications, 2 databases and 2 reports) were included in the review. Abstracted data followed the principles of workforce planning and included demographics, qualifications and roles. Key Issues: Inconsistent definitions, self‐reported data and a focus on practice nurses have contributed to data irregularities. Little is known about the specific aspects of community nursing work. Conclusion: A lack of concrete data has overshadowed a community nursing workforce crisis with implications for patients' health and safety across the lifespan. Implications for Nursing Management: There is urgent need for nurse managers globally to refocus nursing recruitment to the community sector to maintain quality and ensure sustainability of the nursing workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of the study was to explore the impact of a bespoke education programme for Assistants in Nursing (AINs) on their knowledge and attitude toward pressure injury prevention. As an unregistered position, until recently there was no standard educational requirements for AINs, and they may not have received any prior education on pressure injury prevention. Methods: A pre- and post-test quasi-experimental observational study was employed using the validated Attitude toward Pressure Ulcer Prevention (APUP)1 survey and a modified Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Test (PUKAT 2.0)2. An education programme consisting of 6 thirty-minute sessions over a period of 6 weeks was conducted with the surveys completed prior to the education and 3 months following the education sessions. Results: Seventeen AIN's consented to participate in the study and thirteen attended education sessions. At baseline the mean PUKAT 2.0 score was 6.77, and following the educational program was 8.92, with a mean increase of 2.15. The mean APUP score was 39.77 at baseline, and following the intervention was 41.38, showing a mean increase of 1.62. Feedback from participants was positive with all those who attended the education sessions recommending each session was necessary to the programme. Conclusions: In order to prevent the development of pressure injuries, all nursing staff, including AINs, must be aware of the risks and preventative strategies. Our programme aito address this. The project could easily be expanded to include all AINs and be imbedded into essentials of care or comprehensive care programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]