Conectar
The rise in smartphone use presents opportunities and challenges in clinical settings. Despite guidelines restricting mobile phone use, nurses frequently rely on them for various purposes. While beneficial, smartphone use poses risks to information security, patient safety, and care quality, prompting the need for monitoring.
This study examined smartphone usage among nursing students and their perspectives on acceptable and unacceptable use during clinical placements.
This cross-sectional study used convenience sampling to recruit undergraduate nursing students from five universities in Australia and New Zealand. Participants completed the Attitude Towards Digital Device Use during Clinical Placement (Adduct) Scale online between September 2021 and August 2022. The survey included closed and open-ended questions. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted using SPSS. Exploratory factor analysis identified attitudinal dimensions, while group comparisons assessed demographic variations. Qualitative responses were thematically analysed. Reporting followed the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).
Among 279 respondents, drawn from an eligible population of 2682 students, the response rate was 10.4%. Age significantly influenced perceptions of unacceptable smartphone use. Younger students (mean age = 25.0, SD = 9.8) were more likely to view such use as acceptable, with those up to 21 years reporting higher scores on the Unacceptable Use sub-scale compared to older peers (p = 0.024). Most respondents found smartphone use beneficial for accessing information and learning, though concerns included distractions and confidentiality breaches. Younger students were at greater risk of non-adherence to guidelines.
Smartphones can enhance learning and efficiency, but clear guidelines and education are needed to balance benefits with risks, particularly for younger students.
This study highlights the need for clear guidelines and structured training to balance educational benefits of smartphone use with the risks of distraction and breaches of patient confidentiality in clinical practice.
No patient or public pontribution.
This review explores the roles, competencies, and scope of practice of APNs in critical care based on international literature. It also derives implications for the development of advanced nursing roles in Austria.
Integrative review.
The research team conducted a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science to identify relevant peer-reviewed publications from 2007 to 2023.
A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken, following Whittemore and Knafl's five-step methodology. The included publications met the defined inclusion criteria and were appraised for quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. Relevant data were extracted and thematically analysed.
The analysis of 14 international studies revealed recurring themes related to APN core competencies and scope of practice in critical care. These were structured according to Hamric's model. However, Austria faces several challenges, including limited legal frameworks, missing educational structures, and a lack of role clarity. These factors hinder the implementation of APN roles.
Internationally, APNs demonstrate advanced clinical skills, provide leadership in team-based care, and integrate evidence-based practice. These attributes enhance patient outcomes and system efficiency. In Austria, restrictive regulations, limited education, and unclear roles hinder these competencies. Reform is needed to align with international standards, and further research should explore their implementation in Austria.
A gap exists between internationally demonstrated APN competencies and the current state of advanced nursing practice in Austria. This highlights the need for clearer role definitions, regulatory frameworks, and educational strategies. Addressing this gap would strengthen APN roles and improve healthcare quality. This study highlights the need to bridge this disparity.
This review follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews Page et al. (2021).
No patient or public contribution.
FreshRSS 