This study was a replication of an earlier Cochran & Ganong study (1989) that investigated the perception of nurses and patients regarding the stressors faced by patients in the intensive care unit environment. As the original study was American in origin, one of the aims of the present study was to discover if the results would be replicated in a United Kingdom (UK) intensive care unit.Data collection was by the use of an environmental stressor questionnaire that was an adaptation of the original data collection tool modified for use in a UK intensive care unit.The study was undertaken in two intensive care units producing a sample size of 71 patients and 71 nurses.There appears to be a wide variation in the perception of nurses and patients regarding the stress faced by patients in the intensive care unit. Similarities were noted between subject groups as to the nature of the stressors, although nurses tended to rate items over which they believed they had control as being more stressful than did the patients. Patients tended to rate items related to their illness and physical comfort as being most stressful.The results are in keeping with those from the Cochran & Ganong study.

There has been a lot of discussion and debate in various forums regarding how the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2016/679/EU [1], which comes into force on the 25th May 2018, will affect research. Anecdotally, a lot of this discussion has been negative and angst ridden; focusing on what will not be allowed after GDPR comes into force. European Union Regulations are directly enforceable within the EU member states, without the need for domestic legislation, and, regardless of what happens in the United Kingdom (UK) as a result of Brexit, the UK will be part of the European Union on that date and have to comply with the law at that time. The GDPR has effective since 24th May 2016 [2], having a two year transitional period from the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) [3] that it is replacing. The Data Protection Directive was concerned with 'the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data' (preamble Directive 95/46/EC) [3]. In the UK this was enacted through the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) [4]. The DPA 1998 was based around eight data protection principles (Schedule 1 Data Protection Act 1998) and these principles remain in the GDPR. Indeed the reason for the new legislation is that it is almost 20 years since DPA 1998 became law, and the changes in the way society communicates and the amount of information available about individuals, the way that data can be collected, stored, and the use that information is put to means that the existing legislation is no longer fit for purpose. Although the GDPR encompasses the original eight principles in the DPA 1998, it applies these objectives to the modern world. The GDPR is quite a large piece of legislation having 99 Articles, although it can be said to have three main objectives. These objectives are: to provide rules for the protection of the personal data of natural persons and the processing of their personal data; to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, particularly with regard to their personal data; and, to ensure that personal data can move freely within the European Union (Article 1 GDPR). In short the GDPR is concerned with working practices in the way that personal data is handled and used, including how it is shared. Most of the Articles within the GDPR concern corporations and organisations and the way in which they handle personal data. Much of this will have little effect on individual researchers. However, there are some provisions within the GDPR that will affect researchers directly. Obviously it is not possible to go through all the Articles in this editorial; however there are common areas that appear to be of concern to many of the researchers I have spoken with. These areas being:

The purpose of this article is to legally define the terms responsibility, accountability and liability. The connection between these terms for registered children's nurses, students and healthcare support workers are discussed, along with the implications for professional practice.

E-professionalism is a common term used to describe the behaviours of nurses and healthcare professionals in the online environment. There are a range of professional guidance documents that describe being professional online but there is little research into the perspectives of patients and the public.This mixed-method critical realist study aimed to explain how the public make decisions about what is e-professional. It used five 'real life' vignettes for the purposes of discussion in focus groups (n=8) and a survey (n=53).Participants felt that a nurse was entitled to a personal life, freedom of speech and promotion of causes the nurse believes to be important even if this was not aligned to their own attitudes.Profanities against anyone were unanimously rejected as acceptable.The public make decisions based on a range of complex factors: social/individual values, attitudes and beliefs and an ethical component about the 'intent' of behaviours that influences the public perspective. An evidence-based approach to e-professionalism is discussed.This study concludes with 'Media8', eight top tips drawn from a theoretical evidence-base for nurses and the nursing profession about how to 'be' and e-professional and manage their social media profiles.

For patients with myocardial infarction, prompt and effective pain management is vital because the emotional stress caused by the pain may extend the original infarct. This article describes psychological approaches that may be used to alleviate pain in patients with myocardial infarction. The author emphasises that these approaches should not be used alone, but in conjunction with pharmacological pain relief.

No abstract

Anecdotal evidence suggests that nurses believe they should not say sorry when an adverse event or act of negligence has occurred in case they are sued or reported to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. However, this article argues that saying sorry in such circumstances is not an admission of liability but rather a standard to which all nurses should aspire.

Fraser guidelines, Gillick competence; phrases that anyone involved in the care of children will have heard. However, there is often confusion regarding the meaning of these two terms and they are frequently used as substitutes for each other, as if they were interchangeable rather than two distinct but related terms.