Conectar
To examine and synthesise the current literature to gain insights into nursing students' experiences, their perceived learning effectiveness of patient safety and its influencing factors.
Integrative review.
CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases from January 2011 to October 2023.
Of the 5940 papers initially retrieved, 33 were included after title, abstract, and full-text screening. No papers were omitted through quality appraisal.
Despite nursing students' generally positive attitude towards patient safety, their idealistic view did not translate into actual actions of upholding patient safety due to various factors. Moreover, their experiences and perceived effectiveness of learning patient safety were influenced by factors such as organisational safety culture and pedagogical contexts. Thematic analysis revealed four themes: ‘perception, attitudes, and evaluation towards patient safety’; ‘supportive organizational culture as impetus to promote patient safety’; ‘perceived confidence, knowledge, and competence toward patient safety’; and ‘educational contexts and pedagogies to promote learning of patient safety’.
There is an inadequate focus on patient safety in clinical education compared to classroom education. Given that the clinical setting serves as an authentic learning environment of patient safety, nursing faculties play a crucial role in reforming existing nursing curricula to integrate patient safety education in both settings to ensure continuity of learning. Clinical nursing leaders should also proactively review and reform organisational culture and practices to enable nursing students' acquisition and internalisation of patient safety learning.
This review highlighted the need for further collaboration between nursing faculties and healthcare institutions to advocate an environment conducive to nursing students' effective learning of patient safety.
Reporting adheres to the Reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
To identify and understand the different approaches to local consensus discussions that have been used to implement perioperative pathways for common elective surgeries.
Systematic review.
Five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library) were searched electronically for literature published between 1 January 2000 and 6 April 2023.
Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and assessed quality. Data were extracted using a structured extraction tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to identify and categorise the core elements of local consensus discussions reported. Data were synthesised into process models for undertaking local consensus discussions.
The initial search returned 1159 articles after duplicates were removed. Following title and abstract screening, 135 articles underwent full-text review. A total of 63 articles met the inclusion criteria. Reporting of local consensus discussions varied substantially across the included studies. Four elements were consistently reported, which together define a structured process for undertaking local consensus discussions.
Local consensus discussions are a common implementation strategy used to reduce unwarranted clinical variation in surgical care. Several models for undertaking local consensus discussions and their implementation are presented.
Advancing our understanding of consensus building processes in perioperative pathway development could be significantly improved by refining reporting standards to include criteria for achieving consensus and assessing implementation fidelity, alongside advocating for a systematic approach to employing consensus discussions in hospitals.
These findings contribute to recognised gaps in the literature, including how decisions are commonly made in the design and implementation of perioperative pathways, furthering our understanding of the meaning of consensus processes that can be used by clinicians undertaking improvement initiatives.
This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
Trial Registration: CRD42023413817
FreshRSS 