No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Nursing prioritization and rationing decisions in acute care hospitals during the Covid-19 pandemic: a qualitative study
Abstract
Zusammenfassung: Hintergrund: Die Covid-19-Pandemie brachte Priorisierungs- und Rationierungsentscheidungen von Versorgungsressourcen auf die gesundheitspolitische Agenda. Unklar sind die Auswirkungen auf die Allokation pflegerischer Ressourcen in der klinischen Praxis. Ziel: Um Implikationen für zukünftige Pandemien abzuleiten, wurde untersucht, inwieweit es in der akutstationären Pflege zu Entscheidungen über die Verteilung von Ressourcen kam und wie mit Engpässen umgegangen wurde. Methoden: In fünf Akutkliniken in Deutschland wurden halbstrukturierte Interviews mit Pflegefachpersonen (n = 16) und Pflegeteamleitungen (n = 10) durchgeführt und induktiv mittels Thematic-Framework-Analyse ausgewertet. Ergebnisse: In der akutstationären Pflege unter Pandemiebedingungen wurden Priorisierungs- und Rationierungsentscheidungen wie die zeitliche Verschiebung oder Reduktion von Pflegemaßnahmen getroffen, um pandemiespezifische Herausforderungen zu bewältigen. Diese Entscheidungen betrafen bestimmte Patientengruppen und patientennahe und -ferne Leistungen, insbesondere fundamentale Pflegemaßnahmen wie die Unterstützung bei der Körperpflege und bei der Ernährung, sowie den Zugang zur akutstationären Versorgung. Die Entscheidungen wurden eher implizit und nicht nach evidenzbasierten Kriterien getroffen. Schlussfolgerungen: Während der Pandemie wurden pflegerische Priorisierungs- und Rationierungsentscheidungen getroffen. Diese ähneln vergleichbaren Entscheidungen außerhalb der Pandemie, insbesondere in der unzureichenden Evidenzbasierung, und unterstreichen den Bedarf für empirisch fundierte Entscheidungskriterien.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background
Implementation strategies targeting individual healthcare professionals and teams, such as audit and feedback, educational meetings, opinion leaders, and reminders, have demonstrated potential in promoting evidence-based nursing practice. This systematic review examined the effects of the 19 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization Care (EPOC) healthcare professional-level implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.
Methods
A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, with six databases searched up to February 2023 for randomized studies and non-randomized controlled studies evaluating the effects of EPOC implementation strategies on nursing practice. Study selection and data extraction were performed in Covidence. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan, while studies not eligible for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively based on the direction of effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
Results
Out of 21,571 unique records, 204 studies (152 randomized, 52 controlled, non-randomized) enrolling 36,544 nurses and 340,320 patients were included. Common strategies (> 10% of studies) were educational meetings, educational materials, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, tailored interventions, educational outreach, and opinion leaders. Implementation strategies as a whole improved clinical practice outcomes compared to no active intervention, despite high heterogeneity. Group and individual education, patient-mediated interventions, reminders, tailored interventions and opinion leaders had statistically significant effects on clinical practice outcomes. Individual education improved nurses’ attitude, knowledge, perceived control, and skills, while group education also influenced perceived social norms. Although meta-analyses indicate a small, non-statistically significant effect of multifaceted versus single strategies on clinical practice, the narrative synthesis of non-meta-analyzed studies shows favorable outcomes in all studies comparing multifaceted versus single strategies. Group and individual education, as well as tailored interventions, had statistically significant effects on patient outcomes.
Conclusions
Multiple types of implementation strategies may enhance evidence-based nursing practice, though effects vary due to strategy complexity, contextual factors, and variability in outcome measurement. Some evidence suggests that multifaceted strategies are more effective than single component strategies. Effects on patient outcomes are modest. Healthcare organizations and implementation practitioners may consider employing multifaceted, tailored strategies to address local barriers, expand the use of underutilized strategies, and assess the long-term impact of strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.
Trial registration
PROSPERO CRD42019130446.
Despite its frequent provision, evidence of nursing interventions in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) remains unclear. Hence, we addressed the research question: What are the effects of ADL nursing interventions on independence and comfort in adults across all care settings? We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies described in systematic reviews. In three databases, we searched for systematic reviews that we used as a portal to select (quasi) experimental studies. After narratively summarizing the studies on characteristics, effects, and interventions, we assessed the risk of bias. Among the 31 included studies, 14 studies evaluated independence, 14 studies measured comfort, and three studies assessed both outcomes. Seven interventions significantly improved independence and seven interventions significantly improved comfort. The studies varied highly in intervention components, outcome measures, and quality. Evidence on ADL nursing interventions affecting independence and comfort remains fragmented and inconclusive, limiting guidance for nursing professionals.
Aim and objectives:
The aim of this study was to explore the sources of ethical conflict and the decision-making processes of ICU nurses and physicians during the first and subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background:
Depside several studies exploring ethical conflicts during COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have explored in depth the perceptions and experiences of critical care professionals regarding these conflicts, the decision-making process or which have analysed the complexity of actually implementing the recommendations of scientific societies and professional/healthcare institutions in interdisciplinary samples.
Design:
A descriptive phenomenological study.
Methods:
Thirty-eight in-depth interviews were conducted with critical care nurses and physicians from five hospitals in Spain and Italy between December 2020 and May 2021. A thematic content analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted by two researchers. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) were employed to ensure the quality and transparency of this study.
Results:
Two main themes emerged as sources of ethical conflict: the approach to end of life in exceptional circumstances and the lack of humanisation and care resources. The former comprised two subthemes: end-of-life care and withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment; the latter comprised three subthemes: the impossibility of guaranteeing the same opportunities to all, fear of contagion as a barrier to taking decisions and the need to humanise care.
Conclusions:
Professionals sought to take their decisions in line with professional ethics and bioethical principles, but, nevertheless, they experienced moral dilemmas and moral distress when not being able to care for, or to treat, their patients as they believed fit.
Relevance to clinical practice:
Further education and training are recommended on the provision of end-of-life and post-mortem care, effective communication techniques via video calls, disclosure of bad news and bioethical models for decision-making in highly demanding situations of uncertainty, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Background: Management of urinary incontinence (UI) in nursing homes
(NHs) represents a complex process that may have become more challenging
during a period in which front‐line health professionals (HPs) must deal with
the outbreak of a new infectious disease. We aimed to investigate how UI and
its management was affected in NHs during the COVID‐19 pandemic based on
the perception of health professionals.
Methods: This qualitative study was conducted between January and March
2021 with 16 health professionals working in nine NHs in the Osona county
(Barcelona, Spain) during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The individual interviews
were conducted via online videoconferencing and each session was audio
recorded.
Results: The HPs highlighted that the COVID‐19 pandemic affected
the management of continence in NHs, resulting in increased UI. Two
main factors were identified: workforce‐related and resident‐related
factors. Considering the workforce, three main topics emerged: pandemic
as the priority, lack of personnel and use of personal protective equipment
as an obstacle to communication with residents and attending to their
needs.
Conclusion: Managing UI in NHs always has been a challenging point of
care, and these challenges were worsened by the restrictions and additional
difficulties that arose during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Aim
To outline the International Learning Collaborative (ILC) Oxford Statement, explicating our commitment to ensuring health and care systems are equipped to meet patients' fundamental care needs during times of unprecedented crisis.
Design/Method
Discussion paper. The content was developed via a co‐design process with participants during the ILC's international conference.
Key Arguments
We, the ILC, outline what we do and do not want to see within our health and care systems when faced with the challenges of caring for patients during global pandemics and other crises. Specifically, we want fundamental care delivery to be seen as the minimum standard rather than the exception across our health and care systems. We want nursing leaders to call out and stand up for the importance of building fundamental care into systems, processes and funding priorities. We do not want to see the voices of nursing leaders quashed or minimized in favour of other agendas. In turn, what we want to see is greater recognition of fundamental care work and greater respect for the people who do it. We expect nurses to have a ‘seat at the table’ where the key health and care decisions that impact patients and staff are made.
Conclusion
To achieve our goals we must (1) ensure that fundamental care is embedded in all health and care systems, at all levels; (2) build on and strengthen the leadership skills of the nursing workforce by clearly advocating for person‐centred fundamental care; (3) co‐design systems that care for and support our staff's well‐being and which foster collective resilience rather than overly rely on individual resilience; (4) improve the science and methodologies around reporting and measuring fundamental care to show the positive impact of this care delivery and (5) leverage the COVID pandemic crisis as an opportunity for transformational change in fundamental care delivery.
Introduction
The demands of the pandemic such as staff shortages and limited resources combined with new guidelines regarding infection control may have required the prioritizing of nursing interventions.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to describe critical care nurses’ experiences of prioritizing nursing interventions for patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units (ICUs) during the pandemic.
Method
A qualitative descriptive study was gathered from open-ended questions included in a cross-sectional online questionnaire. Characteristics were presented using descriptive statistics, and open-ended questions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach. The study was conducted in Sweden and focused on critical care nurses working in ICUs during spring 2021 and the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Results
During the COVID-19 pandemic, 87% of the critical care nurses had provided orientations for new co-workers, and 52% had supervised intensive care nursing students. In all, 70 answered the question of whether they had prioritized nursing care differently during the pandemic; 86% reported that they had and 14% had not. The qualitative analysis resulted in one theme, Institutional constraints as an obstacle for nursing interventions, with three categories: Prioritizing lifesaving interventions, Performing nursing interventions less frequently, and Not able to provide the nursing care I wish to provide.
Conclusion
Institutional constraints as an obstacle for nursing interventions is the overall theme. It illustrates how critical care nurses have been forced to prioritize, thereby not being able to provide the nursing interventions they wanted to do provide, and it describes their feelings in this situation. The nurses need recovery and possibilities for reflection. The organization must also recover and not only return to how it was before the pandemic but also to learn from recent events and take actions to reduce the long-term effects on staffing.
The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.
Rationale, aims and objectives:
The healthcare system and professionals working in the sector have experienced a high caseload during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This has increased the potential for morally harmful events that violate professionals' moral codes and values. The aim of this study was to understand and explore experiences of new moral challenges emerging among physicians and nurses caring for individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Method:
The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist was used in this qualitative study based on Gadamer's phenomenology. Participants were selected using a convenience sampling method. Thirteen medicine and nursing graduates were interviewed in depth. The participants all worked on the frontline at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were gathered in two basic healthcare districts in Spain, encompassing both primary care and hospital care.
Results:
Four main themes emerged from the data analysis: (1) Betrayal of moral and ethical values as a key source of suffering; (2) Ethical and moral sense of failure accompanying loss of meaning; (3) Lack of confidence in performance; (4) Self-demand and self-punishment as personal condemnation among healthcare workers.
Conclusions:
Health institutions must implement interventions for health professionals to help mitigate the consequences of experiencing complex ethical scenarios during the pandemic. In addition, they should promote training in moral and ethical deliberation and prepare them to make decisions of great ethical significance.
Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Die Unterstützung bei der Körperpflege gehört zu den Kernaufgaben der Pflege. Verschiedene Faktoren können die Umsetzung evidenzbasierter Pflege beeinflussen. Ziel: Die Untersuchung von Sichtweisen beruflich Pflegender in der stationären Langzeitpflege zur Bedeutung und zur Begründung pflegerischer Maßnahmen in der Unterstützung der Körperpflege. Methode: Qualitativer Teil einer Mixed-Methods-Studie in drei Langzeitpflegeeinrichtungen, bestehend aus Kurzinterviews mit beruflich Pflegenden direkt nach der Durchführung der pflegerischen Unterstützung bei der Körperpflege, Fokusgruppen mit Pflegenden und semistrukturierte Interviews mit Pflegemanagement-Verantwortlichen. Die Daten wurden inhaltsanalytisch ausgewertet. Ergebnisse: Die Stichprobe ( N = 30) umfasst 10 Kurzinterviews, 3 Fokusgruppen ( n = 17) und 3 Einzelinterviews. Pflegende wiesen der pflegerischen Unterstützung in der Körperpflege überwiegend eine hohe Relevanz zu. Als Grundlage für pflegerische Entscheidungen wurden Bewohnerbedürfnisse und -präferenzen, persönliches Wissen sowie eigene Erfahrungen und Präferenzen genannt. Evidenzbasierte Wissensquellen wurden kaum erwähnt. Als beeinflussende Faktoren wurden die Verfügbarkeit von Hautreinigungs- und Hautpflegeprodukten, personelle und zeitliche Ressourcen sowie die pflegerisch-ärztliche Zusammenarbeit identifiziert. Schlussfolgerungen: Pflegerische Entscheidungen in der Unterstützung der Körperpflege berücksichtigen kaum forschungsgestützte Evidenz. Evidenzbasierte Entscheidungshilfen könnten die Auswahl geeigneter Pflegeinterventionen für Pflegende erleichtern.
Ethical dilemmas for healthcare workers (HCWs) during pandemics highlight the centrality of moral stressors and moral distress (MD) as well as potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) and moral injury (MI). These constructs offer a novel approach to understanding workplace stressors in healthcare settings, especially in the demanding times of COVID-19, but they so far lack clear identification of causes and consequences. A scoping review of moral stressors, moral distress, PMIEs, and MI of healthcare workers during COVID-19 was conducted using the databases Web of Science Core Collection and PsycINFO based on articles published up to October 2021. Studies were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) the measurement of either moral stress, MD, PMIEs, or MI among HCWs; (2) original research using qualitative or quantitative methods; and (3) the availability of the peer-reviewed original article in English or German. The initial search revealed n = 149,394 studies from Web of Science and n = 34 studies from EBSCOhost. Nineteen studies were included in the review. Conditions representing moral stressors and PMIEs as well as MD and MI as their potential outcomes in healthcare contexts during COVID-19 are presented and discussed. Highlighting MD and MI in HCWs during COVID-19 brings attention to the need for conceptualizing the impact of moral stressors of any degree. Therefore, the development of a common, theoretically founded model of MD and MI is desirable.
The research has reported a high prevalence of low-quality and missed care for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Optimised nursing treatment and care will benefit CAP patients. The aim of this study was to describe the barriers and facilitators influencing registered nurses’ (RNs’) adherence to evidence-based guideline (EBG) recommendations for nursing care (NC) for older patients admitted with CAP. Semi-structured focus group interviews (n = 2), field observations (n = 14), and individual follow-up interviews (n = 10) were conducted in three medical units and analysed by a qualitative content analysis. We found a main theme: ‘‘stolen time’—delivering nursing at the bottom of a hierarchy’, and three themes: (1) ‘under the dominance of stronger paradigms’, (2) ‘the loss of professional identity’, and (3) ‘the power of leadership’. These themes, each comprising two to three subthemes, illustrated that RNs’ adherence to EBG recommendations was strongly influenced by the individual RN’s professionalism and professional identity; contextual barriers, including the interdisciplinary team, organisational structure, culture, and evaluation of the NC; and the nurse manager’s leadership skills. This study identified central factors that may help RNs to understand the underlying dynamics in a healthcare setting hindering and facilitating the performance of NC and make them better equipped for changing practices.
Background
Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients’ fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care.
Methods
We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables.
Results
Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients’ conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2.
Conclusions
Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.
Rationing in health care is controversial, and even more so in pediatrics. Children are an inherently vulnerable group because they are reliant on their parents and caregivers to make decisions in their best interests and have no political voice. Historically, there has been general acceptance of the need to ration healthcare at a systems level, however there is controversy over whether healthcare professionals should be involved in rationing at the bedside. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that bedside rationing is unavoidable, at least in times of extreme resource scarcity. Internationally, there has been significant ethical analysis and guideline development to guide intensive care rationing decisions in the event that resources are overwhelmed. This paper explores the principles underlying distributive justice in healthcare rationing and discusses how these were operationalized in ethical guidelines for the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, rationing is unavoidable and occurs constantly in everyday nursing and medical ICU practice, often in mundane and uncontroversial ways. Some argue that these everyday decisions are not true rationing decisions, but resource allocation, or stewardship decisions. We argue there are no clear lines between resource allocation and rationing decisions, rather that they occur on a spectrum. These everyday rationing decisions are particularly susceptible to personal biases that are often implicit. Due to the subtle and constant nature of most everyday rationing decisions, specific guideline development will rarely be practical or appropriate. However, it is possible to develop other processes to improve decision making. There are a variety of strategies we recommend for this including, encouraging reflective practice; developing explicit frameworks that promote collaborative decision making; being transparent about resource allocation and rationing decisions with colleagues, patients, and families; and promoting a workplace culture of speaking up and accessing support in identifying and managing everyday rationing decisions.
Strategien der Qualitätssicherung sind ein vielversprechender und zunehmend beliebter Ansatz zur Qualitätskontrolle in qualitativen Studien. Besonders wichtig sind sie in großen Forschungsgruppen. Am Beispiel der multimethodischen Längsschnittstudie Personalisierte Lernkonzepte in heterogenen Lerngruppen (perLen) werden Herausforderungen und Möglichkeiten bei der Anwendung von Strategien der Qualitätssicherung in qualitativ inhaltsanalytischen Teilstudien untersucht und reflektiert. Dabei zeigt sich, dass günstige Wirkungen auf die Qualität des gesamten Forschungsprozesses und dadurch auf die Ergebnisse zu erwarten sind, wenn Kriterien und Strategien der methodenspezifischen und der methodenübergreifenden Qualitätssicherung kombiniert, Erhebungs-und Auswertungsverfahren aufeinander abgestimmt, ein einheitliches Verfahrens- und Dokumentationssystem etabliert, alle Mitwirkenden mit Instrumenten und Verfahren vertraut gemacht und Qualitätskontrollen nicht nur methodenspezifisch und prozessorientiert, sondern in jedem einzelnen Forschungsschritt integrativ durchgeführt werden. Die hier mit Blick auf die qualitative Inhaltsanalyse beschriebenen Erkenntnisse können in ihren Grundzügen auf Untersuchungen mit anderen qualitativen Methoden übertragen werden und dazu beitragen, die Qualität innerhalb und zwischen den Erhebungszeitpunkten in qualitativen Längsschnittstudien zu sichern und dadurch auch die Aussagekraft multimethodischer Studien zu erhöhen.
Driven by interests in workforce planning and patient safety, a growing body of literature has begun to identify the reality and the prevalence of missed nursing care, also specified as care left undone, rationed care or unfinished care. Empirical studies and conceptual considerations have focused on structural issues such as staffing, as well as on outcome issues – missed care/unfinished care. Philosophical and ethical aspects of unfinished care are largely unexplored. Thus, while internationally studies highlight instances of covert rationing/missed care/care left undone – suggesting that nurses, in certain contexts, are actively engaged in rationing care – in terms of the nursing and nursing ethics literature, there appears to be a dearth of explicit decision-making frameworks within which to consider rationing of nursing care. In reality, the assumption of policy makers and health service managers is that nurses will continue to provide full care – despite reducing staffing levels and increased patient turnover, dependency and complexity of care. Often, it would appear that rationing/missed care/nursing care left undone is a direct response to overwhelming demands on the nursing resource in specific contexts. A discussion of resource allocation and rationing in nursing therefore seems timely. The aim of this discussion paper is to consider the ethical dimension of issues of resource allocation and rationing as they relate to nursing care and the distribution of the nursing resource.
Aims:
To identify nursing care most frequently missed in acute adult inpatient wards and determine evidence for the association of missed care with nurse staffing.
Background:
Research has established associations between nurse staffing levels and adverse patient outcomes including in-hospital mortality. However, the causal nature of this relationship is uncertain and omissions of nursing care (referred as missed care, care left undone or rationed care) have been proposed as a factor which may provide a more direct indicator of nurse staffing adequacy.
Design:
Systematic review.
Data sources:
We searched the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase and Medline (2006-2016) for quantitative studies of associations between staffing and missed care. We searched key journals, personal libraries and reference lists of articles.
Review methods:
Two reviewers independently selected studies. Quality appraisal was based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklist for studies reporting correlations and associations. Data were abstracted on study design, missed care prevalence and measures of association. Synthesis was narrative.
Results:
Eighteen studies gave subjective reports of missed care. 75% or more nurses reported omitting some care. Fourteen studies found low nurse staffing levels were significantly associated with higher reports of missed care. There was little evidence that adding support workers to the team reduced missed care.
Conclusions:
Low Registered Nurse staffing is associated with reports of missed nursing care in hospitals. Missed care is a promising indicator of nurse staffing adequacy. The extent to which the relationships observed represent actual failures is yet to be investigated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Background:
Implicit rationing of nursing care - likewise as in medical care - has never been empirically measured in German hospitals. Thus, little is known about prevalence and patterns of nursing care left undone as well as its association with nurse work environment and staffing.
Methodology:
We surveyed 1,511 registered nurses from 49 German acute hospitals participating in the multi-country cross-sectional study RN4CAST. Analyses were made by descriptive statistics as well as multilevel regression analysis to calculate predictors from the nurse work environment and staffing.
Results:
On average 4.7 out of 13 nursing tasks were rationed. The range was between 82% for "comfort/talk with patients" and 15% for "treatments and procedures". The analysis revealed that hospital work environments and staffing ratios were significantly associated with the level of nursing care left undone. Further significant associations were found between poor leadership, inadequate organisation of nursing work as well as high emotional exhaustion and rationing.
Discussion:
The phenomenon of nursing care left undone was prevalent in German hospitals. Those tasks which are most likely to have negative consequences for patients (e. g., pain management and medication on time) seem to receive higher priority than tasks whose potential effects are less immediate or direct (e. g., psychosocial care). With regard to the measured correlation with the nurse work environment, it is recommend to invest in a good environment before (or simultaneously) investing in nurse staffing.
Introduction:
In the last few years, shortcomings in caring for patient needs have promoted a growing interest in the Fundamentals of Care (FoC) to promote the quality of nursing care. However, which strategies nurse managers should implement to facilitate a FoC-based nursing care approach have not been mapped to date; therefore, the intent of this study was to map those strategies related to the nurse manager role that have been documented as being capable of promoting (or hindering), a FoC-based approach among nurses.
Methods:
A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis - Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science databases and the conference proceedings of the International Learning Collaborative 2022 Annual International Conference were consulted. Studies exploring the relationship between FoC and nurse managers using any methodology, published from 2008 (year of birth of the FoC movement) to September 2022, in Italian or English, were eligible for inclusion. Findings were categorized narratively, according to their similarities and differences.
Results:
Four qualitative studies, four discussion papers, two reviews and one mixed-method study, published from 2017 to 2021, predominantly in Australia, were included. Several strategies have emerged as promoting a FoC-based care approach by nurse managers. At the macro level, there is a need to disseminate a culture of attention towards patients that should be incorporated in the strategy of the entire system; moreover, synergies and effective leadership styles should be promoted by also providing education both in the undergraduate and continuing education settings. At the micro levels, among others, the required resources should be available, and the quality of the environment promoted.
Conclusion:
Nurse managers may facilitate a FoC-based approach among nurses through a set of strategies that should be included and considered in their educational pathways.
The progressive desensitization of nurses in relation to fundamental needs (FNs) has been documented in anecdotical, scientific, and policy literature with nurses spending limited time at the bedside, thus affecting the quality of care and clinical outcomes. A potential reason that has been recognized is the limited nursing staff available in the units. However, other cultural, social, and psychological factors which have not been investigated to date may have a role in triggering the phenomenon. To investigate nurses' perceptions of the reasons that progressively detach clinical nurses from the FNs of patients, was the main intent of the study. In 2020, a qualitative study based on grounded theory following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines was performed. Purposeful sampling was adopted, by including 22 clinical nurses designated as 'good nurses' according to the perception of nurses working in executive and academic position. All agreed to be interviewed face-to-face. The detachment of nurses from the patients' FNs has been explained by three main factors that are interconnected: namely 'Being personally and professionally convinced regarding the role of FNs', 'Being progressively detached from the FNs', and 'Being forced to be detached from FNs'. Nurses also identified a category including strategies aimed at preventing detachment and 'Rediscovering the FNs as the core of nursing'. Nurses are personally and professionally convinced about the relevance of the FNs. However, they distance themselves from the FNs due to: (a) factors mainly attributable to internal personal and professional forces, such as the emotional fatigue that daily work entails; and (b) external forces related to the work environment where nurses work. To prevent this detrimental process that may result in negative outcomes for patients and their relatives, several strategies at the individual, organizational, and educational levels should be implemented.
Background: The COVID-19-pandemic is an unprecedented, exceptional situation and necessitates numerous adaptations
of structures and processes in the acute inpatient setting.
Aim: The aim of this study was to explore how acute inpatient
care was influenced by the pandemic and which implications may result for the future from nursing managers' and hygiene specialists' point of view.
Methods: Qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with five nursing managers
and three hygiene specialists in four German acute care hospitals. Interviews were interpreted by using content analysis.
Results: Interviewees described how everyday routines in their hospitals were adapted to the prioritized care for COVID-19
patients. Main challenges were uncertainty and anxiety among staff, relative scarcity of equipment and workforce resources and rapid implementation of new requirements for treatment capacities. This was addressed by targeted communication and information, large efforts to ensure resources and coordinated control of all processes by cross-department, interprofessional task forces.
Conclusions: Adaptations made to the structures and procedures of care delivery during the pandemic hold potential for future improvements of routine care, e. g. new workplace and skill mix models. To identify detailed practical implications, a renewed and deepened data analysis is needed at a later point of time, with a larger distance to the period of the pandemic.
Keywords: Hospitals, nursing management, COVID-19 pandemic, health care rationing, qualitative research
Abstract
Background
Nurses are often responsible for the care of many patients at the same time and have to prioritise their daily nursing care activities. Prioritising the different assessed care needs and managing consequential conflicting expectations, challenges nurses’ professional and moral values.
Objective
To explore and illustrate the key aspects of the ethical elements of the prioritisation of nursing care and its consequences for nurses.
Design, data sources and methods
A scoping review was used to analyse existing empirical research on the topics of priority setting, prioritisation and rationing in nursing care, including the related ethical issues. The selection of material was conducted in three stages: research identification using two data bases, CINAHL and MEDLINE. Out of 2024 citations 25 empirical research articles were analysed using inductive content analysis.
Results
Nurses prioritised patient care or participated in the decision-making at the bedside and at unit, organisational and at societal levels. Bedside priority setting, the main concern of nurses, focused on patients’ daily care needs, prioritising work by essential tasks and participating in priority setting for patients’ access to care. Unit level priority setting focused on processes and decisions about bed allocation and fairness. Nurses participated in organisational and societal level priority setting through discussion about the priorities. Studies revealed priorities set by nurses include prioritisation between patient groups, patients having specific diseases, the severity of the patient’s situation, age, and the perceived good that treatment and care brings to patients. The negative consequences of priority setting activity were nurses’ moral distress, missed care, which impacts on both patient outcomes and nursing professional practice and quality of care compromise.
Conclusions
Analysis of the ethical elements, the causes, concerns and consequences of priority setting, need to be studied further to reveal the underlying causes of priority setting for nursing staff. Prioritising has been reported to be difficult for nurses. Therefore there is a need to study the elements and processes involved in order to determine what type of education and support nurses require to assist them in priority setting.
Aims and objectives:
Identify and summarize factors and processes related to registered nurses' patient care decision-making in medical-surgical environments. A secondary goal of this literature review was to determine whether medical-surgical decision-making literature included factors that appeared to be similar to concepts and factors in Naturalistic Decision Making.
Background:
Decision-making in acute care nursing requires an evaluation of many complex factors. While decision-making research in acute care nursing is prevalent, errors in decision-making continue leading to poor patient outcomes. Naturalistic Decision Making may provide a framework for further exploring decision-making in acute care nursing practice. A better understanding of the literature is needed to guide future research to more effectively support acute care nurse decision-making.
Design:
Pubmed and CINAHL databases were searched and research meeting criteria was included. Data were identified from all included articles and themes were developed based on these data.
Results:
Key findings in this review include nursing experience and associated factors; organization and unit culture influences on decision-making; education; understanding patient status; situation awareness; and autonomy.
Conclusions:
Acute care nurses employ a variety of decision-making factors and processes. informally identify experienced nurses to be important resources for decision-making. Incorporation of evidence into acute care nursing practice continues to be a struggle for acute care nurses. This review indicates that Naturalistic Decision Making may be applicable to decision-making nursing research.
Relevance to clinical practice:
Experienced nurses bring a broad range of previous patient encounters to their practice influencing their intuitive, unconscious processes which facilitates decision-making. Using NDM as a conceptual framework to guide research may help with understanding how to better support less experienced nurses' decision-making for enhanced patient outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
To explore the association between implicit rationing of nursing care and selected patient outcomes in Swiss hospitals, adjusting for major organizational variables, including the quality of the nurse practice environment and the level of nurse staffing. Rationing was measured using the newly developed Basel Extent of Rationing of Nursing Care (BERNCA) instrument. Additional data were collected using an adapted version of the International Hospital Outcomes Study questionnaire.
Multi-hospital cross-sectional surveys of patients and nurses.
Eight Swiss acute care hospitals
Nurses (1338) and patients (779) on 118 medical, surgical and gynecological units.
Patient satisfaction, nurse-reported medication errors, patient falls, nosocomial infections, pressure ulcers and critical incidents involving patients over the previous year.
Generally, nurses reported rarely having omitted any of the 20 nursing tasks listed in the BERNCA over their last 7 working days. However, despite relatively low levels, implicit rationing of nursing care was a significant predictor of all six patient outcomes studied. Although the adequacy of nursing resources was a significant predictor for most of the patient outcomes in unadjusted models, it was not an independent predictor in the adjusted models. Low nursing resource adequacy ratings were a significant predictor for five of the six patient outcomes in the unadjusted models, but not in the adjusted ones.
As a system factor in acute general hospitals, implicit rationing of nursing care is an important new predictor of patient outcomes and merits further study.
Prioritäten in der medizinischen Versorgung im System der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (GKV): Müssen und können wir uns entscheiden?
- Zentrale Ethikkommission
Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach it
- S Straus
- P Glasziou
- W S Richardson
- B Haynes
Straus, S., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S. & Haynes, B. (2019). Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach it (5th ed.).
Elsevier.