Research demonstrates that the majority of alarms derived from continuous bedside monitoring devices are non-actionable. This avalanche of unreliable alerts causes clinicians to experience sensory overload when attempting to sort real from false alarms, causing desensitization and alarm fatigue, which in turn leads to adverse events when true instability is neither recognized nor attended to despite the alarm. The scope of the problem of alarm fatigue is broad, and its contributing mechanisms are numerous. Current and future approaches to defining and reacting to actionable and non-actionable alarms are being developed and investigated, but challenges in impacting alarm modalities, sensitivity and specificity, and clinical activity in order to reduce alarm fatigue and adverse events remain. A multi-faceted approach involving clinicians, computer scientists, industry, and regulatory agencies is needed to battle alarm fatigue.

Background Illness severity scoring systems are commonly used in critical care. When applied to the populations for whom they were developed and validated, these tools can facilitate mortality prediction and risk stratification, optimize resource use, and improve patient outcomes. Objective To describe the characteristics and applications of the scoring systems most frequently applied to critically ill patients. Methods A literature search was performed using MEDLINE to identify original articles on intensive care unit scoring systems published in the English language from 1980 to 2020. Search terms associated with critical care scoring systems were used alone or in combination to find relevant publications. Results Two types of scoring systems are most frequently applied to critically ill patients: those that predict risk of in-hospital mortality at the time of intensive care unit admission (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Mortality Probability Models) and those that assess and characterize current degree of organ dysfunction (Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and Logistic Organ Dysfunction System). This article details these systems’ differing features and timing of use, score calculation, patient populations, and comparative performance data. Conclusion Critical care nurses must be aware of the strengths, limitations, and specific characteristics of severity scoring systems commonly used in intensive care unit patients to effectively employ these tools in clinical practice and critically appraise research findings based on their use.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAdvanced practice registered nursing (APRN) competencies exist, but there is no structure supporting the operationalization of the competencies by APRN educators. The development of a Mastery Rubric (MR) for APRNs provides a developmental trajectory that supports educational institutions, educators, students, and APRNs. A MR describes the explicit knowledge, skills, and abilities as performed by the individual moving from novice (student) through graduation and into the APRN career.MethodA curriculum development tool, the Mastery Rubric (MR), was created to structure the curriculum and career of the nurse practitioner (NP), the MR-NP. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) yielded the first of the three required elements for any MR: a list of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to be established through the curriculum. The European guild structure and Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive behaviors provided the second element of the MR, the specific developmental stages that are relevant for the curriculum. The Body of Work method of standard setting was used to create the third required element of the MR, performance level descriptors (PLDs) for each KSA at each of these stages. Although the CTA was informed by the competencies, it was still necessary to formally assess the alignment of competencies with the resulting KSAs; this was achieved via Degrees of Freedom Analysis (DoFA). Validity evidence was obtained from this Analysis and from the DoFA of the KSAs’ alignment with principles of andragogy, and with learning outcomes assessment criteria. These analyses are the first time the national competencies for the NP have been evaluated in this manner.ResultsCTA of the 43 NP Competencies led to seven KSAs that support a developmental trajectory for instruction and documenting achievement towards independent performance on the competencies. The Competencies were objectively evaluable for the first time since their publication due to the psychometric validity attributes of the PLD-derived developmental trajectory. Three qualitatively distinct performance levels for the independent practitioner make the previously implicit developmental requirements of the competencies explicit for the first time.DiscussionThe MR-NP provides the first articulated and observable developmental trajectory for the NP competencies, during and beyond the formal curriculum. A focus on psychometric validity was brought to bear on how learners would demonstrate their development, and ultimately their achievement, of the competencies. The MR-NP goes beyond the competencies with trajectories and PLDs that can engage both learner and instructor in this developmental process throughout the career.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract