Conectar
To assess the level of alarm fatigue among intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac care unit (CCU) and emergency room (ER) nurses, identify associated demographic and occupational factors, determine the most frequent sources of alarms and evaluate nurses’ psychological reactions to alarms.
A cross-sectional, descriptive–analytical study.
ICUs, CCUs and ERs of six public teaching hospitals affiliated with Tehran and Kashan Universities of Medical Sciences in Iran.
Using a multistage stratified random sampling method, 285 nurses were approached, of whom 260 completed and returned the questionnaires (response rate: 91%). Participants were registered nurses with at least a bachelor’s degree or higher and 3 months of experience in ICUs, CCUs or ERs.
The primary outcome was the level of alarm fatigue measured using the validated Nurses’ Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with alarm fatigue and nurses’ reported psychological responses to frequent alarms.
The mean score of alarm fatigue was 26.4±7.9, indicating a moderate level. After adjusting for confounders and hospital-level clustering using multivariable mixed-effects regression, higher monthly income was significantly associated with lower alarm fatigue (β=–0.15, p=0.03), and nurses working rotational shifts reported significantly higher fatigue compared with those with fixed shifts (β=0.18, p=0.02). Other demographic and occupational factors were not significant. Reported psychological reactions to alarms included indifference (14%), irritability (18%) and anxiety/stress (15%).
ICU, CCU and ER nurses experience a moderate level of alarm fatigue, with income and shift type as independent associated factors. The association between income and alarm fatigue may reflect the role of financial stress as an additional job demand that compounds the burden of frequent alarms, particularly in contexts where low base salaries lead nurses to rely on overtime and multiple shifts. These findings underscore the need for targeted managerial and educational interventions, including shift schedule optimisation and attention to workload-related stressors, alongside alarm prioritisation strategies. Due to the cross-sectional design, causal inferences cannot be drawn.
by Tahere Seyedhoseinpoor, Ramin Jafari, Zohreh Shafizadegan, Maryam Abbaszadeh-Amirdehi
PurposeThe objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of thoracic-focused interventions, including breathing exercises and thoracic manual techniques (mobilization, high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation, and release techniques), on pain and disability in patients with low back pain (LBP).
MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, ProQuest, Ovid, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar were searched without language restrictions. Clinical trials with control groups on pain and disability in low back pain patients focusing on the efficacy of breathing exercises or thoracic technique were included. In total, 31 studies contributed to the meta-analysis for pain and 24 for disability.
ResultsPooled analyses using Morris’ dppc demonstrated a statistically significant, small effect for pain reduction (dppc = −0.35, 95% CI = −0.46 to −0.23) and a large effect for disability improvement (dppc = −0.71, 95% CI = −0.86 to −0.57) when compared with control groups. Thoracic manual techniques showed larger effects on both pain and disability compare to breathing exercises. However, substantial statistical heterogeneity (I² > 85%) persisted in most analyses.
ConclusionBreathing and thoracic manual techniques may be effective in reducing disability and, to a lesser extent, pain in patients with LBP, but the overall certainty of evidence is low. However, the quality of the evidence is low. Variability in treatment protocols, study quality, blinding, and outcome measures likely contributed to inconsistencies. Further high-quality trials with standardized protocols are needed to confirm these findings and inform clinical practice.
To explore the optimal timing of patient-reported outcome assessment, defined as the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes at clinically meaningful points such as before or during encounters, treatment initiation and follow-up, and to identify the facilitators and barriers to timely use.
A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals across diverse US health systems.
Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes related to the timing and implementation of patient-reported outcomes assessments. Interviews were analysed iteratively to develop a coding framework and synthesise overarching themes.
Fourteen healthcare professionals, including nurse practitioners, cardiologists and health informatics experts across seven U.S. health systems from academic and community hospitals, were interviewed in February 2024. Three major themes emerged: (1) value proposition of timely patient-reported outcome data collection (2) key facilitators for timely implementation and (3) multilevel barriers. The value proposition focused on the use of patient-reported outcomes for prevention and active disease management. Critical facilitators for the timely implementation of patient-reported outcomes included the involvement of research and clinical coordinators, strategies for pre-visit and on-site patient-reported outcome collection, the use of standardised templates within EHRs and the alignment of patient-reported outcome collection with patients' long-term treatment goals. Finally, multilevel barriers included time constraints, patient-level challenges (e.g., fatigue, literacy, language) and systemic issues (e.g., technical limitations, lack of reimbursement and unclear guidelines).
Timely collection and use of patient-reported outcomes is critical for improving symptom monitoring and supporting patient-centered clinical decision-making. However, multilevel barriers hinder consistent implementation across health care settings.
Integrating patient-reported outcomes into clinical workflows can improve the patient-centeredness of patient-healthcare professional interactions, and provide a more holistic picture of a patient's health status. Addressing barriers to patient-reported outcome implementation, including lack of time, poor health literacy and workflow integration barriers, is crucial for improving clinical outcomes.
This study adhered to the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist, in accordance with EQUATOR Network guidelines.
No patient or public involvement: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
FreshRSS 