Background Nursing is characterized by a working articulation in shifts to ensure continuity of care throughout the 24 h. However, shift work and the resulting desynchronization of circadian rhythms may have adverse effects on nurses’ health. Aims To describe the effects of shift work and desynchronization of circadian rhythms on nurse’s health. Methods Databases: PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus, Embase and Ilisi. Search terms (free terms, MeSH): ‘nurses’, ‘shiftwork’, ‘nightwork’, ‘sleep disorder, circadian rhythm’, ‘work schedule tolerance’, ‘breast neoplasm’, ‘metabolic syndrome X’, ‘metabolic cardiovascular syndrome’, ‘Cardiovascular disease’, ‘stress’, ‘diabetes’. We included all randomized controlled trials, observational studies, reviews and papers studying nurses’ shift work. Quality assessment of the retrieved papers was verified according to Dixon-Woods checklist. Results Twenty-four articles were analyzed. Literature review has shown that shift work involves an alteration in psychophysical homeostasis, with a decrease in performance. It is an obstacle for social and family relationships, as well as a risk factor for stress, sleep disorders, metabolic disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and breast cancer. Conclusions An organized ergonomic turnaround can be less detrimental to the health of nurses and more beneficial for the healthcare providers. Therefore, we suggest organizing studies to assess whether improving nurses’ health would lead to a reduction in miscarriages, absenteeism and work-related stress.

Background: Moral distress is an increasingly documented problem in nursing and might foster nurses’ intention to leave their workplace. It has been studied in different settings, but no specific research has been conducted in Italian correctional facilities. A recent Italian study produced a preliminary validation of the Moral Distress Scale for Correctional Nurses, which needs to be completed. Objectives: To investigate the level of moral distress of nurses working in the Italian correctional setting, by completing the validation process of the Moral Distress Scale for Correctional Nurses. Methodology: Multicenter questionnaire survey. All correctional nurses (461) affiliated with the Italian Society of Medicine and Penitentiary Health (also called “Simspe-onlus”) were invited to participate and 238 responded. The survey was conducted between April and November 2017 through SurveyMonkey®. Analysis of covariance was conducted to investigate the relationship between moral distress and the other variables under study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the scale to confirm its dimensions. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the Italian Society of Medicine and Penitentiary Health (Simspe-onlus). The questionnaire included informed consent, pursuant to the law in force. The software could not accept questionnaires without explicit consent. Data were analyzed anonymously. Findings: The median score was 46.5, indicating moderate moral distress. The only variable affecting moral distress was work experience in correctional facilities. Longer experience was correlated to higher levels of moral distress and intention to leave. Incompetent colleagues and short staffing were related to higher levels of moral distress. The scale confirmed the one-dimensional structure suggested by the original authors. Discussion: This is the first study investigating moral distress among Correctional Nurses. The prison context is a high-risk environment for nurses, increasing the intention to leave the workplace. Conclusion: Corrective and protective measures, such as specific education, are needed to prevent moral distress development and to reduce nurses’ shortage in this area.

These findings will provide indications on the strategies needed to overcome such barriers.

No abstract

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.