Conectar
In Australia, aligned to safety and quality standards, the health system implements standardised practices that include patient involvement in nursing bedside handover. Despite this mandate, it remains unclear whether patients are genuinely participating in nursing bedside handovers and whether their perspectives are being considered.
To explore patient perceptions of their involvement in nursing bedside handovers.
A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in two acute metropolitan hospitals in Western Australia from July 2021 to March 2022. The survey administered to patients, comprised three sections: demographic information; involvement in bedside handover; and perceptions of bedside handovers; utilising close-ended and Likert scale questions. Open-ended questions further explored participation in bedside handovers. Descriptive statistics and comparative analyses were performed and responses to open-ended questions underwent summative deductive content analysis.
Of the 390 participants, over half reported five or more bedside handovers (n = 197, 50.7%). Most perceived the importance of (n = 334, 79.0%), and expressed their satisfaction with (n = 327, 89.6%), involvement in bedside handover. Perceptions of handover were mostly positive. There were a few significant differences throughout based on type of hospital, gender and age-group. Open ended responses shared perceptions on the perceived benefits, challenges and barriers and ways to enhance involvement in bedside handover. Patients expressed several challenges, including lack of awareness of their right to participate, the approach of nurses and the timing of handovers as hindering their participation in bedside handovers.
Patients perceived the importance of, were mostly satisfied with, and had positive perceptions of bedside handover. However, several challenges hindered effective patient participation. Further research is needed into bedside handover as it is essential to enhance patient-centred quality care that aligns with national safety and quality healthcare standards.
Understanding the significance of patient involvement in bedside handovers motivates patients to actively share information about their care, leading to increased patient satisfaction and the promotion of patient-centred care. Addressing challenges through targeted strategies can enhance patient participation, communication, increased patient satisfaction and foster a more patient-centred approach to care.
The conduct of this study was supported by the consumer advisory group in the participating hospitals who also reviewed the survey questionnaires and conducted face validity of the survey.
To systematically summarise evidence related to the use of non-sterile gloves when preparing and administering intravenous antimicrobials.
Scoping review.
A rigorous scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework and the modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review guidelines (2018). Five databases and grey literature were included in the search. Literature published between 2009 and 2024 was included.
Five databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science) and the grey literature were searched in February 2024.
Three studies were included; however, none directly addressed correct non-sterile glove use during intravenous antimicrobial preparation or administration in clinical practice.
We found no evidence to support the use of non-sterile gloves in intravenous antimicrobial preparation. There is an urgent need for rigorous research to inform the development of clear guidelines on non-sterile glove use to underpin evidence-based decision-making in nursing and other health professional education, improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs and promote environmental sustainability in healthcare.
Inappropriate use of non-sterile gloves for preparing and administering intravenous antimicrobials hinders correct hand hygiene practices and increases healthcare-associated infections, healthcare costs and waste.
A critical gap in the existing evidence was a key finding of this review, highlighting the urgency for evidence-based guidelines to improve patient safety outcomes, reduce healthcare costs and promote environmental sustainability in healthcare.
This scoping review adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting checklist.
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY4J2).
Research priorities guide research activities, funding and resources within health services. To ensure that research efforts are meaningful and impactful, it is vital that organisational research agendas reflect the priorities of both healthcare consumers and staff, alongside broader national and international research frameworks. This paper outlines a research priority-setting project conducted across two hospitals in Western Australia, aimed at identifying shared research priorities through a collaborative and inclusive approach.
To identify the top ten nursing and allied health research priorities for two hospitals in Western Australia.
A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was used, involving health services users, nurses, allied health professionals, and community members in a co-design approach across three phases. In phase 1, four community conversations were conducted to elicit an initial set of research topics. This data-informed phase 2, a survey to collect diverse views from a wider participant pool. In phase 3, a pre-selected sample of potential research priorities was discussed in a consensus workshop to reach a group consensus of the top ten research priorities. Qualitative data was analysed using multi-step thematic analysis, and quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics.
A total of 67, 151 and 18 people participated across study phases 1, 2 and 3, respectively, comprising nurses, allied health professionals, healthcare users, carers, and interested community members. The top ten research priorities reflected three areas: healthcare systems re/design (streamlining care; access to healthcare; patient journey and quality of care), workforce needs (workforce well-being, retention and adequate staffing; workforce training), and specific health issues and needs (dementia and delirium; mental health; caring for carers; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health; palliative care and elderly people).
The research priorities identified in this study for two hospitals in Western Australia reflect the strong desire of nurses, allied health professionals, healthcare users and community members to improve structural issues in healthcare systems. This includes how healthcare systems are designed and integrated with each other, how workforce needs affect service delivery, and a greater focus on holistic service provision for specific health issues and needs.
Healthcare consumers were an integral part of this study. Healthcare consumers were involved in the design of the study, the conduct of the study, and the review of the data analysis.
To explore and summarise the literature on the concept of ‘clinical deterioration’ as a nurse-sensitive indicator of quality of care in the out-of-hospital context.
The scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review and the JBI best practice guidelines for scoping reviews.
Studies focusing on clinical deterioration, errors of omission, nurse sensitive indicators and the quality of nursing and midwifery care for all categories of registered, enrolled, or licensed practice nurses and midwives in the out-of-hospital context were included regardless of methodology. Text and opinion papers were also considered. Study protocols were excluded.
Data bases were searched from inception to June 2022 and included CINAHL, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, EmCare, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, Informit Health and Society Database, JSTOR, Nursing and Allied Health Database, RURAL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Institute.
Thirty-four studies were included. Workloads, education and training opportunities, access to technology, home visits, clinical assessments and use of screening tools or guidelines impacted the ability to recognise, relay information and respond to clinical deterioration in the out-of-hospital setting.
Little is known about the work of nurses or midwives in out-of-hospital settings and their recognition, reaction to and relay of information about patient deterioration. The complex and subtle nature of non-acute deterioration creates challenges in defining and subsequently evaluating the role and impact of nurses in these settings.
Further research is needed to clarify outcome measures and nurse contribution to the care of the deteriorating patient in the out-of-hospital setting to reduce the rate of avoidable hospitalisation and articulate the contribution of nurses and midwives to patient care.
Factors that impact a nurse's ability to recognise, relay information and respond to clinical deterioration in the out-of-hospital setting are not examined to date.
A range of factors were identified that impacted a nurse's ability to recognise, relay information and respond to clinical deterioration in the out-of-hospital setting including workloads, education and training opportunities, access to technology, home visits, clinical assessments, use of screening tools or guidelines, and avoidable hospitalisation.
Where and on whom will the research have an impact?
Nurses and nursing management will benefit from understanding the factors that act as barriers and facilitators for effective recognition of, and responding to, a deteriorating patient in the out-of-hospital setting. This in turn will impact patient survival and satisfaction.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review guidelines guided this review. The PRISMA-Scr Checklist (Tricco et al., 2018) is included as (supplementary file 1).Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.”
Not required as the Scoping Review used publicly available information.
FreshRSS 