Article

Neonatal intensive care unit and emergency department nurses' descriptions of working together: building team relationships to improve safety.

College of Nursing, Texas Woman's University, Houston, TX, USA.
Critical care nursing clinics of North America (Impact Factor: 0.43). 06/2010; 22(2):253-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2010.03.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Teamwork is considered a critical factor in delivering high-quality, safe patient care although research on the evidence base of the effectiveness of teamwork and communication across disciplines is scarce. Health care providers have limited educational preparation for the communication and complex care coordination across disciplines required by today's complex patients. Complex work environments are affected by little understood human factors including the intricacies of human communication and behavior. To understand how nurses view teamwork, this secondary qualitative analysis examined nurses' perceptions of working in high-performance areas with interdisciplinary teams. Results from 4 focus groups of 18 nurses from a neonatal intensive care unit and emergency department trauma resuscitation teams, revealed 3 themes with descriptive meanings to help understand the complexities of teamwork. These findings illustrate the rewards and challenges for teams working together in the current health care environment. Continuing to investigate teamwork can add to our understanding of what nurses and health professionals need to know about teamwork to help develop evidence-based team training in prelicensure education and in practice settings.

7 Followers
 · 
216 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of an educational workshop on knowledge of and attitude toward therapeutic use of music and aesthetic experiences with music among first-line nurses. A one-group pre-test/post-test design was used. Forty-six first-line nurses, aged 21-56 years, were recruited from seven different hospitals. Questionnaires were used to assess the nurses' knowledge of and attitude toward therapeutic use of music and aesthetic experience with music before and after the workshop, and 3 months after the workshop. The workshop comprised three sessions; the nurses participated in 8h of instruction the first week and 4h, the second week covering analytical music appreciation, music staves comprehension, theory and practice of music therapy, and evidence-based music intervention. Educational workshop significantly improved knowledge of and attitudes toward therapeutic use of music and music aesthetic experiences (p<0.001). A sustained effect of the workshop was found at follow up 3-month after workshop. The mean change in scores for music aesthetic experiences between nurse with and without music backgrounds differed significantly (p=0.01). The workshop enhanced the knowledge of and attitude toward therapeutic use of music and aesthetic experiences with music among first-line nurses.
    Nurse education today 02/2011; 31(8):e63-9. DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.022 · 1.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: "Time out for patient safety" is a simple and effective tool to improve communication among caregivers based on the use of critical language that has been effective in the perioperative setting, airline industry, and military. In the emergency department it is non threatening and focuses attention on safe patient care. "Time out for patient safety" complements the use of other standardized communication techniques such as SBAR in clinical situations in which immediate intervention is mandatory for patient safety.This communication tool was presented to the multidisciplinary staff and has been embedded in the Emergency Department's simulation program for newly graduated nurses. The concept was well received by the group.Future research is needed to address outcomes for effectiveness.
    Journal of Emergency Nursing 07/2011; 38(1):51-3. DOI:10.1016/j.jen.2011.04.007 · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) cycle-coupled model, CLASS-CTEMN+ was developed by incorporating soil and plant N cycling algorithms in the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM), used in the Canadian Global Climate Model. Key soil and plant N cycling processes incorporated in the model include biological fixation, mineralization, nitrification, denitrification, leaching and N controls on plant photosynthesis capacity. The model was used to analyse N controls on C and water exchanges in a 70-year-old temperate conifer forest in southern Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2007. The simulated values of soil–plant N contents and fluxes – including N2O flux – were generally in good agreement with observations. When N controls on C and water cycling were included in the model, simulated daily gross ecosystem productivity (GEP), ecosystem respiration (Re), net ecosystem productivity (NEP) and evapotranspiration (ET) fluxes showed improved agreement with eddy covariance flux measurements. The five-year mean annual NEP predicted by the N-coupled model was 121gCm−2yr− for 2003–2007, compared to 273gCm−2yr−1, which was simulated by the model when N controls were switched off (non-N model). N-coupled model estimates compared well with the measured five-year mean (± standard deviation) annual NEP of 136±59gCm−2yr−1. Simulated annual mean ET over five-years was 384mmyr−1 for the N-coupled model, and 433mmyr−1 for non-N model, compared with the measured five-year mean annual value of 405±44mmyr−1. Model results confirmed that a proper representation of N controls on photosynthetic uptake and canopy conductance could result in more plausible simulations of observed C and water fluxes. The model results also suggested that N limitations in spring and early summer were generally more important in controlling NEP. Discrepancies between simulated and measured annual variations of C exchanges occurred in years that included extreme weather periods (e.g. low soil water content and warm spring/summer temperatures).
    Ecological Modelling 10/2011; 222(20):3743-3760. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.09.008 · 2.33 Impact Factor
Show more