Search

BackgroundInterprofessional team training is needed to improve nurse-physician communication skills that are lacking in clinical practice. Using simulations has proven to be an effective learning approach for team training. Yet, it has logistical constraints that call for the exploration of virtual environments in delivering team training. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate a team training program using virtual reality vs conventional live simulations on medical and nursing students’ communication skill performances and teamwork attitudes. MethodsIn June 2018, the authors implemented nurse-physician communication team training using communication tools. A randomized controlled trial study was conducted with 120 undergraduate medical and nursing students who were randomly assigned to undertake team training using virtual reality or live simulations. The participants from both groups were tested on their communication performances through team-based simulation assessments. Their teamwork attitudes were evaluated using interprofessional attitude surveys that were administered before, immediately after, and 2 months after the study interventions. ResultsThe team-based simulation assessment revealed no significant differences in the communication performance posttest scores (P=.29) between the virtual and simulation groups. Both groups reported significant increases in the interprofessional attitudes posttest scores from the baseline scores, with no significant differences found between the groups over the 3 time points. ConclusionsOur study outcomes did not show an inferiority of team training using virtual reality when compared with live simulations, which supports the potential use of virtual reality to substitute conventional simulations for communication team training. Future studies can leverage the use of artificial intelligence technology in virtual reality to replace costly human-controlled facilitators to achieve better scalability and sustainability of team-based training in interprofessional education. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04330924; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04330924

Aim: To explore factors associated with academic performance in the Master of Nursing programme. Background: Advanced practice nursing preparatory education generally involves completion of the Master of Nursing programme. While prior clinical experiences and on‐the‐job training are believed to underpin the preparation for such education, studies have suggested only weak or no associations between nurses' academic success in graduate schools and their clinical experiences. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the nursing department of a university in Singapore. Academic and demographic data were extracted in February 2020 from a shared repository of anonymised teaching and learning data. R was used to select and merge data tables into a usable format for subsequent analysis. Students enrolled between 2010 and 2017 were included for the analysis (n = 246). Results: Age was statistically significantly associated with overall cumulative academic performance (p < 0.001). Younger students on average academically outperformed older students. Unmarried students were associated with better cumulative academic performance in the Clinical Practicum 2 module (p = 0.018). Conclusion: Younger students have historically outperformed their older counterparts in the Master of Nursing programme. There is a need to reassess the requirement of five years of clinical experience as an admission criterion for the Master of Nursing programme in Singapore. Implications for nursing policy: There is a need to re‐evaluate the admission criteria to better engage and retain younger nurses interested in advanced nursing practice. Nursing educators and leaders can partner with academics to develop advanced practice‐specific education for pre‐master nurses with the aptitude and interest in pursuing this track. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the extent to which Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) is associated with a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety in patients. Data Sources: Three databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched by two independent authors from inception to June 12, 2022 for observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the association between BPPV and depression and anxiety. We included studies published as full‐length articles in peer‐reviewed journals with an adult population aged at least 18 years who have BPPV, detected through validated clinical methods like clinical diagnosis, interview and Dix‐Hallpike test. Results: A total of 23 articles met the final inclusion criteria and 19 articles were included in the meta‐analysis. BPPV was associated with a 3.19 increased risk of anxiety compared to controls, and 27% (17%–39%) of BPPV patients suffered from anxiety. Furthermore, the weighted average Beck's Anxiety Inventory score was 18.38 (12.57; 24.18), while the weighted average State–Trait Anxiety Index score was 43.08 (37.57; 48.60). Conclusion: There appears to be some association between BPPV and anxiety, but further studies are required to confirm these associations. Laryngoscope, 134:526–534, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinician predicted survival for cancer patients is often inaccurate, and prognostic tools may be helpful, such as the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI). The PPI development study reported that when PPI score is greater than 6, it predicted survival of less than 3 weeks with a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 85%. When PPI score is greater than 4, it predicts survival of less than 6 weeks with a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 77%. However, subsequent PPI validation studies have evaluated various thresholds and survival durations, and it is unclear which is most appropriate for use in clinical practice. With the development of numerous prognostic tools, it is also unclear which is most accurate and feasible for use in multiple care settings. Aim: We evaluated PPI model performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients based on different thresholds and survival durations and compared it to other prognostic tools. Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022302679). We calculated the pooled sensitivity and specificity of each threshold using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and pooled diagnostic odds ratio of each survival duration using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to compare PPI performance with clinician predicted survival and other prognostic tools. Findings which could not be included in meta-analyses were summarised narratively. Data sources: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL, ProQuest and Google Scholar were searched for articles published from inception till 7 January 2022. Both retrospective and prospective observational studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients in any setting were included. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality appraisal. Results: Thirty-nine studies evaluating PPI performance in predicting survival of adult cancer patients were included (n = 19,714 patients). Across meta-analyses of 12 PPI score thresholds and survival durations, we found that PPI was most accurate for predicting survival of <3 weeks and <6 weeks. Survival prediction of <3 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>6 (pooled sensitivity = 0.68, 95% CI 0.60–0.75, specificity = 0.80, 95% CI 0.75–0.85). Survival prediction of <6 weeks was most accurate when PPI score>4 (pooled sensitivity = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65–0.78, specificity = 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.80). Comparative meta-analyses found that PPI performed similarly to Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score in predicting <3-week survival, but less accurately in <30-day survival prediction. However, Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Score only provide <30-day survival probabilities, and it is uncertain how this would be helpful for patients and clinicians. PPI also performed similarly to clinician predicted survival in predicting <30-day survival. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution as limited studies were available for comparative meta-analyses. Risk of bias was high for all studies, mainly due to poor reporting of statistical analyses. while there were low applicability concerns for most (38/39) studies. Conclusions: PPI score>6 should be used for <3-week survival prediction, and PPI score>4 for <6-week survival. PPI is easily scored and does not require invasive tests, and thus would be easily implemented in multiple care settings. Given the acceptable accuracy of PPI in predicting <3- and <6-week survival and its objective nature, it could be used to cross-check clinician predicted survival especially when clinicians have doubts about their own judgement, or when clinician estimates seem to be less reliable. Future studies should adhere to the reporting guidelines and provide comprehensive analyses of PPI model performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Given the diversity of the scope for inquiry and methodologies used in nursing research, the synthesis of primary research may not be as straightforward as conducting a meta‐analysis or systematic review on clinical trials. Scoping reviews offer an option to nursing academics for inquiries involving a range of applications and interpretations. Given the continual advances in evidence‐based research, it is, therefore, crucial for nursing to constantly substantiate its research capabilities and uphold standards in its research inquiry. Accordingly, an updated overview would be timely to characterize scoping reviews in the nursing literature. Hence this review aimed to examine the characteristics of scoping reviews published in nursing journals and evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the scoping reviews. Design: A systematic review. Methods: A comprehensive search of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) were conducted. Scoping reviews published in English on or before December 31, 2020 were included, with the criterion that their publication had been in nursing journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (2020 Science Edition) of the Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for eligibility. A standardized data extraction form was used for data collection, and a 29‐item checklist was developed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the scoping reviews. The methodological and reporting quality was assessed independently by four reviewers and subsequently counter‐checked by another two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the included papers, and narrative synthesis was undertaken to explain the results. Results: This review included 422 papers from 88 nursing journals. They were published between 2008 and 2021 (median year 2019). Only 15 (3.5%) reviews reported accessible protocols, and 63 (15.0%) presented data on their critical appraisal of the included sources of evidence. Poor reporting of the selection of sources of evidence and data extraction was also identified. Overall, the 422 included reviews had complied with 20 (median [range: 9–27]) of the 29 items on the checklist. Conclusions: Scoping reviews have garnered wider acceptance in nursing research, of which the scopes and methodologies exhibit much diversity. Our systematic review has provided insights into existing scoping reviews published in nursing journals through our characterization of them and appraisal of their methodological and reporting quality. However, our findings underline several areas needing improvement: the lack of transparency, the absence of critical appraisal, non‐compliance to established checklists, and inconsistencies in the data processing. Clinical Relevance: Appraising included sources of evidence and maintaining transparency in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews increases the practical utility of scoping reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]