No abstract

The aims of this study were to survey the knowledge and attitudes of Italian health care professionals toward pain and develop a valid instrument to assess pain knowledge of physicians and nurses. A 21-item questionnaire on a Likert scale was given to 4,961 health professionals in 20 hospitals in Italy who volunteered to participate in the study. The results were analyzed psychometrically in three phases: the Principal Component Analysis phase identified two components, of which only the one that had 10 items about pain knowledge and attitudes (PAK) was studied; the Homogeneity Analysis revealed its acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.72) and confirmed the Likert equidistance of the item options response; and the Confirmatory Factor Analysis proved that it had a very good construct validity. A standardized score was calculated on the PAK questionnaire using the final 10 selected items, considering 100% as the best level of knowledge of pain management and 0% as the worst. The standardized mean score on the whole sample was equal to 52.6% (95% Confidence Interval: 52.3%-53.0%). There was a statistically significant difference (P<0.001) in percentage score between physicians (56.5%) and nurses (51.3%). Knowledge was best among physicians in Anesthesiology and Emergency; this was followed by doctors in Medicine and then surgeons. The knowledge of nurses was almost constant. This scale fills a void by providing a validated instrument for testing the general knowledge about pain treatment of hospital staff. It is brief and can easily be administered to a considerable number of people.

Aim To analyse graduating nursing students’ self‐assessed competence level in Europe at graduation, at the beginning of nursing career. Design An international cross‐sectional evaluative design. Methods Data were collected in February 2018–July 2019 from graduating nursing students in 10 European countries. Competence was assessed with a validated instrument, the Nurse Competence Scale (NCS). The sample comprised 3,490 students (response rate 45%), and data were analysed statistically. Results In all countries, graduating nursing students assessed their competence as good (range 50.0–69.1; VAS 0–100), albeit with statistically significant differences between countries. The assessments were highest in Iceland and lowest in Lithuania. Older students, those with working experience in health care, satisfied with their current degree programme, with excellent or good study achievements, graduating to 1st study choice and having a nursing career plan for future assessed their competence higher.

No abstract

This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions to reduce physical restraint (PR) use in older people living in nursing homes or residential care facilities. A systematic search of studies published in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). The review included individual and cluster randomized controlled trials that compared educational training and multicomponent programs to avoid PR use. Risk bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This review includes 16 studies in a qualitative synthesis that met the inclusion criteria, nine of them offered a multicomponent program and seven offered only educational training. The results of the 12 studies included in the meta-analysis showed a significant trend in favor of intervention over time and intensity of PR use tends to decrease. The review indicates that educational programs and other supplementary interventions should be effective, but the heterogeneous operative definition of physical restraints can make difficult data generalization.

Despite the worldwide promotion of a “restraint-free” model of care due to the questionable ethical and legal issues and the many adverse physical and psychosocial effects of physical restraints, their use remains relatively high, especially in the intensive care setting. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to explore the experiences of nurses using physical restraints in the intensive care setting. Semi-structured interviews with 20 nurses working in intensive care units for at least three years, were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Then, the transcripts were analyzed according to the qualitative descriptive approach by Sandelowsky and Barroso (2002). Six main themes emerged: (1) definition of restraint, (2) who decides to restrain? (3) reasons behind the restraint use, (4) physical restraint used as the last option (5) family involvement, (6) nurses’ feelings about restraint. Physical restraint evokes different thoughts and feelings. Nurses, which are the professionals most present at the patient’s bedside, have been shown to be the main decision-makers regarding the application of physical restraints. Nurses need to balance the ethical principle of beneficence through this practice, ensuring the safety of the patient, and the principle of autonomy of the person.

Context Error reporting is considered one of the most important mediating factors for patient safety (PS). However, reporting errors can be challenging for health care students. Objectives The aims of the study were: (i) to describe nursing students’ opportunity to report errors, near misses or PS issues that emerged during their clinical learning experience; and (ii) to explore associated factors of the process of reporting itself. Methods A national survey was conducted on 9607 (91.7%) undergraduate nursing students. The endpoint was to have reported PS issues in the last clinical learning experience (from 0 ‘never’ to 3 ‘always’). Explanatory variables were set individual, nursing programme and regional levels. Results A total of 4004 (41.7%) nursing students reported PS issues from ‘never/rarely’ to ‘sometimes’. In the multi‐level analysis, factors increasing the likelihood of reporting events affecting PS have been mainly at the nursing programme level: specifically, higher learning opportunities (odds ratio [OR] = 3.040; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.667–3.466), self‐directed learning opportunities (OR = 1.491; 95% CI, 1.364–1.630), safety and nursing care quality (OR = 1.411; 95% CI, 1.250–1.594) and quality of tutorial strategies OR = 1.251; 95% CI, 1.113–1.406). By contrast, being supervised by a nurse teacher (OR = 0.523; 95% CI, 0.359–0.761) prevented the disclosure of PS issues compared with being supervised by a clinical nurse. Students attending their nursing programmes in some Italian regions showed a higher likelihood (OR from 1.346 to 2.938) of reporting PS issues compared with those undertaking their education in other regions. Conclusions Nursing students continue to be reticent to report PS issues. Given that they represent the largest generation of future health care workers, their education regarding PS should be continuously monitored and improved; moreover, strategies aimed at developing a non‐blaming culture should be designed and implemented both at the clinical learning setting and regional levels.

Mentoring is a profound relationship that can deeply change the mentee, and training to mentorship can affect the identity of the future mentor, as well.