Search

Aims: This article explored the publication impact of evidence‐based healthcare terminology to determine usage and discuss options for low usage terms. Background: A plethora of terms describe the scholarship of evidence‐based healthcare. Several terms are synonyms, creating redundancy and confusion. The abundance and overlap of terms may impede the discovery of evidence. Design: This discursive article explored and discussed publication impact of evidence‐based healthcare terms. Methods: Evidence‐based healthcare terms were identified, and their 10‐year (2013–2022) publication impact was assessed in the CINAHL and Medline databases. A card sort method was also used to identify terms with low usage. Results: A total of 18/32 terms were included in the review. The terms evidence‐based practice, quality improvement, research and translational research were the most highly published terms. Publication data were presented yearly over a 10‐year period. Most terms increased in publication use over time, except for three terms whose use decreased. Several terms related to translational research have multiple synonyms. It remains unknown whether these terms are interchangeable and possibly redundant, or if there are nuanced differences between terms. Conclusion: We suggest a follow‐up review in 3–5 years to identify publication trends to assess context and terms with continued low publication usage. Terms with persistent low usage should be considered for retirement in the reporting of scholarly activities. Additionally, terms with increasing publication trends should be treated as emerging terms that contribute to evidence‐based healthcare terminology. Implications for Nursing: Confusion about the use of appropriate terminology may hinder progress in the scholarship of evidence‐based healthcare. We encourage scholars to be aware of publication impact as it relates to the use of specific terminology and be purposeful in the selection of terms used in scholarly projects and publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chlorhexidine gluconate has been considered the criterion standard of oral care for patients receiving mechanical ventilation because of its ability to reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated events. Optimal concentrations and frequencies remain unclear, as do adverse events related to mortality in various intensive care unit populations. Objective: To examine the current evidence for the efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate in reducing the incidence of ventilator-associated events, mortality, intensive care unit length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation in patients receiving ventilator support. Methods: In this integrative review, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), MEDLINE, and Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition were searched using terms related to mechanical ventilation and chlorhexidine gluconate oral care with dates ranging from 2012 to 2023. Results: Seventeen articles were included in this review: 8 systematic reviews, 8 randomized clinical trials (3 of which were not included in any systematic review), and 1 quasi-experimental study. Chlorhexidine gluconate oral care was associated with a reduced incidence of ventilator-associated events, but efficacy depended on concentration and frequency of administration. With stratification by intensive care unit population type, a nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality was found among non–cardiac surgical patients who received this care. Conclusion: The evidence regarding the efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate oral care in reducing ventilator-associated events in specific intensive care unit populations is contradictory. Recently published guidelines recommend de-implementation of chlorhexidine gluconate oral care in all patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Such care may be beneficial only in the cardiac surgical population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author(s): Henry T. Stelfox [sup.1] [sup.2] [sup.3] [sup.4], Annette M. Bourgault [sup.5] [sup.6], Daniel J. Niven [sup.1] [sup.2] [sup.3] [sup.4] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.22072.35, 0000 0004 1936 7697, Department of [...]

The author offers insights on the relevance of some contemporary nursing issues addressed in letters to the editor published in "Critical Care Nurse" journal from February 2004 to August 2023. Topics discussed include the challenges associated with the bedside nursing profession, the role of nurses in maintaining healthy work environments, and the impact of severe weather conditions such as Hurricane Katrina on public health and well-being.

The author reflects on how clinical nurses can write articles for publication in journals like "Critical Care Nurse" (CCN). Other topics include the types of manuscripts published at CCN like evidence-based practice articles and structured review articles, how to select topics to write for publications, and her tips for the writing process.

ABSTRACT Aim. This pilot study explored using audio recordings as method of feedback for weekly clinical assignments of nursing students. Background. Feedback that provides students with insight into their performance [...]

* This article has been designated for CE credit. A closed-book, multiple-choice examination follows this article, which tests your knowledge of the following objectives: 1. Identify issues related to the [...]

Aim: This qualitative study explored de‐implementation of feeding tube auscultation practice in adult patients by critical care nurses. Background: Despite years of evidence suggesting inaccuracy and harm, auscultation (air bolus method) continues to be used by the majority of critical care nurses to verify small‐bore feeding tube placement in adults. Design This descriptive qualitative study used thematic analysis with telephone interview data. Methods: Fourteen critical care nurses from four stratified groups within the United States (by hospital type and auscultation practice) participated in telephone interviews. Results: Two major themes of individual influence and organizational leadership emerged from the data. Categories identified key components required for auscultation de‐implementation. Conclusions: Nurses feel obligated to follow hospital policies and expressed less accountability for their own practice. Organizational leadership involvement is recommended to facilitate de‐implementation of this tradition‐based, low‐value practice and mitigate harm events. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? Auscultation is not an accurate method to identify feeding tube placement.Many critical care nurses continue to use the auscultation method (a low‐value, tradition‐based practice) to verify feeding tubes.Factors associated with de‐implementation of auscultation method for feeding tube verification are unknown. What this paper adds? Many nurses are aware that auscultation is not evidence based for adult feeding tube verification and are falsely comforted by hearing the whoosh sound (psychological bias).A combination of individual and organizational factors are barriers to de‐implementing auscultation of feeding tubes.Nurses seek guidance from leaders within their organization to facilitate de‐implementation, which is a necessary component of evidence‐based practice. The implications of this paper: A major challenge to de‐implementation of auscultation is the lack of valid bedside methods to assess feeding tube placement. Active involvement by organizational leaders will facilitate decision‐making to recommend a safe substitution for the auscultation method.Nurses expressed eagerness to incorporate evidence into their practice if they have adequate leadership support and the necessary resources to make practice changes.Formal intervention by organizational leaders is needed to promote de‐implementation of auscultation for feeding tubes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]