Bi-lingual content validation of the Non-Technical Skills for Operating Room Nurses (NOTSORN) tool: A Delphi Study

Background The primary responsibility of the operating room nurse is to prevent adverse events and patient harm during surgery. Since most preventable adverse events are the result of breakdowns in communication and teamwork, or non-technical skills, training such skills should strengthen the operating room nurses’ error prevention abilities. Behavioural marker systems operationalise non-technical skills; however, previous systems for operating room nurses do not cover the full extent of non-technical skills used by operating room nurses. Thus, the Non-technical Skills for Operating Room Nurses (NOTSORN) behavioural marker system was developed. Objective The objective of this study was to establish face and content validity of the Non-Technical Skills for Operating Room Nurses behavioural marker system. This multi-item scale measures individual non-technical skills in operating room nursing. Participants A purposive sample of operating room nursing researchers, educators, and senior clinicians from nine countries worldwide. Methods A two round, Delphi panel with international experts in operating room nursing. The survey was administered online. Content validity index (CVI) was used to measure agreement among panel members. Results 25 operating room nurse experts participated in the online Delphi study. After round 1, 56 items were accepted, 26 items were revised, and 1 item was dropped. Following round 2, all items (6 with minor revisions) were accepted. Thus, the Non-technical Skills for Operating Room Nurses tool comprise 81 items. The scale level CVI score for the final 81 item tool was 0.99. The individual item level CVI scores ranged from 0.9 to 1.0. Conclusions The Non-Technical Skills of Operating Room Nurses behavioural marker system is a nuanced tool with a myriad of non-technical skills operating room nurses need to undertake their work safely. The tool's intended use includes student/trainee supervision, supervision of novice operating room nurses, self-reflection for performance reports, and in operating room nursing education. Over time, use of the tool has the potential to contribute to patient safety in the operating room.publishedVersio

The initial psychometric evaluation of a new Emergency Department Patient-Reported Experience Measure (ED PREM)

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are critical to evaluating the person-centeredness, safety, and quality of healthcare services internationally. The aim of this study was to describe the initial psychometric evaluation of a new Emergency Department (ED) PREM. Adult patients presenting to the ED of a tertiary hospital in southeast Queensland, Australia during January 2022 were recruited in-person. Participants selected their preferred ED PREM mode of administration from online, telephone, or postal, and had 14 days from recruitment to complete the survey. Item reduction, structural validity, discriminant validity, and internal consistency reliability were assessed. A sample of 349 (68.4%) was achieved. Item reduction analysis indicated ceiling effects for all ED PREM items (ranging between 34.4-79.7%). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 4-factor solution comprising 26-items that explained 55% of model variance. Cronbach’s α ranged between 0.84-0.97 per factor, demonstrating internal consistency reliability. Known groups analysis demonstrated the ED PREMs’ ability to discriminate experiences based on gender, age, and ED length of stay. The ED PREM is a valid and reliable instrument for capturing patient experiences in the ED. The content of the ED PREM emphasizes person-centeredness and shared decision making, making it suitable for use in clinical practice evaluation and health service performance measurement. The factor structure of the ED PREM should be confirmed in future research, and item redundancy addressed. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://theberylinstitute.org/experience-framework/). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Foam dressings for treating pressure injuries in patients of any age in any care setting: An abridged Cochrane Systematic Review

Background: Pressure injuries are localised areas of injury to the skin and/or underlying tissues. Objectives: To assess foam dressings compared to other dressings in healing pressure injuries. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Data sources: The review team searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Authors also searched clinical trials registries and scanned reference lists for reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports. No restrictions were applied to language, publication date or study setting. Study eligibility criteria: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials and cluster- randomised controlled trials that examined the clinical or cost effectiveness of foam dressings for healing pressure injuries. Participants: Patients of any age with a pressure injury of Stage II or above in any care setting. Interventions: Use of any foam wound dressing for treating Stage II pressure injuries or above. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Full-text were assessed for eligibility using a priori criteria by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Risk ratio and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were used to measure the effect. The review team used Review Manager 5 to enter narrative and qualitative data of included studies. Results: Authors found nine studies published between 1994 and 2016 involving 483 participants with pressure injuries at Stage II or above. Included studies compared foam dressings with other types of dressings. However, it was unclear if the foam dressing affected healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI-4.03 to 15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.65), or reduction in pressure injury size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Limitations: Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, the certainty and completeness of evidence was low to very low, making it difficult to draw comparisons between foam and other dressings. Conclusions and implications: It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure injuries

The cost-effectiveness of a patient centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: findings from the INTACT cluster randomised trial

Background: Pressure ulcers are serious, avoidable, costly and common adverse outcomes of healthcare. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle compared to standard care. Design: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of pressure ulcer prevention performed from the health system perspective using data collected alongside a cluster-randomised trial. Settings: Eight tertiary hospitals in Australia. Participants: Adult patients receiving either a patient-centred pressure ulcer prevention care bundle (n = 799) or standard care (n = 799). Methods: Direct costs related to the intervention and preventative strategies were collected from trial data and supplemented by micro-costing data on patient turning and skin care from a 4-week substudy (n = 317). The time horizon for the economic evaluation matched the trial duration, with the endpoint being diagnosis of a new pressure ulcer, hospital discharge/transfer or 28 days; whichever occurred first. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the primary outcome was the incremental costs of prevention per additional hospital acquired pressure ulcer case avoided, estimated using a two-stage cluster-adjusted non-parametric bootstrap method. The cost-benefit analysis estimated net monetary benefit, which considered both the costs of prevention and any difference in length of stay. All costs are reported in AU$(2015). Results: The care bundle cost AU$144.91 (95%CI: $74.96 to$246.08) more per patient than standard care. The largest contributors to cost were clinical nurse time for repositioning and skin inspection. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the care bundle was estimated to cost an additional $3,296 (95$144,525) per pressure ulcer avoided. This estimate is highly uncertain. Length of stay was unexpectedly higher in the care bundle group. In a cost-benefit analysis which considered length of stay, the net monetary benefit for the care bundle was estimated to be −$2,320 (95$3,900, −$1,175) per patient, suggesting the care bundle was not a cost-effective use of resources. Conclusions: A pressure ulcer prevention care bundle consisting of multicomponent nurse training and patient education may promote best practice nursing care but may not be cost-effective in preventing hospital acquired pressure ulcer

The effect of a patient centred care bundle intervention on pressure ulcer incidence (INTACT): a cluster randomised trial

Background: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers are a serious patient safety concern, associated with poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs. They are also viewed as an indicator of nursing care quality. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle in preventing hospital-acquired pressure ulcers among at risk patients. Design: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial. Setting: Eight tertiary referral hospitals with >200 beds each in three Australian states. Participants: 1600 patients (200/hospital) were recruited. Patients were eligible if they were: ≥18 years old; at risk of pressure ulcer because of limited mobility; expected to stay in hospital ≥48 h and able to read English. Methods: Hospitals (clusters) were stratified in two groups by recent pressure ulcer rates and randomised within strata to either a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle or standard care. The care bundle was theoretically and empirically based on patient participation and clinical practice guidelines. It was multi-component, with three messages for patients’ participation in pressure ulcer prevention care: keep moving; look after your skin; and eat a healthy diet. Training aids for patients included a DVD, brochure and poster. Nurses in intervention hospitals were trained in partnering with patients in their pressure ulcer prevention care. The statistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation and interventionists blinded to the study hypotheses, tested at both the cluster and patient level. The primary outcome, incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers, which applied to both the cluster and individual participant level, was measured by daily skin inspection. Results: Four clusters were randomised to each group and 799 patients per group analysed. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.035. After adjusting for clustering and pre-specified covariates (age, pressure ulcer present at baseline, body mass index, reason for admission, residence and number of comorbidities on admission), the hazard ratio for new pressure ulcers developed (pressure ulcer prevention care bundle relative to standard care) was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.25, 1.33; p = 0.198). No adverse events or harms were reported. Conclusions: Although the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was associated with a large reduction in the hazard of ulceration, there was a high degree of uncertainty around this estimate and the difference was not statistically significant. Possible explanations for this non-significant finding include that the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was effective but the sample size too small to detect this

INTroducing A Care bundle To prevent pressure injury (INTACT) in at-risk patients: A protocol for a cluster randomised trial

Background Pressure injuries are a significant clinical and economic issue, affecting both patients and the health care system. Many pressure injuries in hospitals are facility acquired, and are largely preventable. Despite growing evidence and directives for pressure injury prevention, implementation of preventative strategies is suboptimal, and pressure injuries remain a serious problem in hospitals. Objectives This study will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred pressure injury prevention care bundle on the development of hospital acquired pressure injury in at-risk patients. Design This is a multi-site, parallel group cluster randomised trial. The hospital is the unit of randomisation. Methods Adult medical and surgical patients admitted to the study wards of eight hospitals who are (a) deemed to be at risk of pressure injury (i.e. have reduced mobility), (b) expected to stay in hospital for ≥48 h, (c) admitted to hospital in the past 36 h; and (d) able to provide informed consent will be eligible to participate. Consenting patients will receive either the pressure injury prevention care bundle or standard care. The care bundle contains three main messages: (1) keep moving; (2) look after your skin; and (3) eat a healthy diet. Nurses will receive education about the intervention. Patients will exit the study upon development of a pressure injury, hospital discharge or 28 days, whichever comes first; transfer to another hospital or transfer to critical care and mechanically ventilated. The primary outcome is incidence of hospital acquired pressure injury. Secondary outcomes are pressure injury stage, patient participation in care and health care costs. A health economic sub-study and a process evaluation will be undertaken alongside the trial. Data will be analysed at the cluster (hospital) and patient level. Estimates of hospital acquired pressure injury incidence in each group, group differences and 95% confidence interval and p values will be reported. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first trial of an intervention to incorporate a number of pressure injury prevention strategies into a care bundle focusing on patient participation and nurse–patient partnership. The results of this study will provide important information on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention in preventing pressure injuries in at-risk patients. If the results confirm the utility of the developed care bundle, it could have a significant impact on clinical practice worldwide

The genetic architecture of the human cerebral cortex

The cerebral cortex underlies our complex cognitive capabilities, yet little is known about the specific genetic loci that influence human cortical structure. To identify genetic variants that affect cortical structure, we conducted a genome-wide association meta-analysis of brain magnetic resonance imaging data from 51,665 individuals. We analyzed the surface area and average thickness of the whole cortex and 34 regions with known functional specializations. We identified 199 significant loci and found significant enrichment for loci influencing total surface area within regulatory elements that are active during prenatal cortical development, supporting the radial unit hypothesis. Loci that affect regional surface area cluster near genes in Wnt signaling pathways, which influence progenitor expansion and areal identity. Variation in cortical structure is genetically correlated with cognitive function, Parkinson's disease, insomnia, depression, neuroticism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

How do perioperative nurses cope with stress?

In recent years there has been broad discussion on the nature of stressors experienced by members of high risk occupations and professions, for instance nursing and emergency workers, whose role is to support others through traumatic scenarios (Lam et al, 1999:23). Perioperative nursing is a major specialization in nursing practice in which there is an increased risk of exposure to traumatic events (Schwann, 1998:645). Moreover, the cumulative nature of critical events, if left undealt with that will potentiate attrition among nurses in the perioperative environment (Michael and Jenkins, 2001:39). This triangulated study using self-administered questionaires focused on how theatre nurses coped with contextual stressors in the work milieu. A purposive sample of 46 registered and enrolled nurses who worked at a major Brisbane hospital were asked to describe a recent stressful workplace event, and rat rate it using Horowitz\u27s (1993) Impact of Event Scale (IES). Results indicated that nurses with the least general theatre experience, demonstrated the highest negative impacts. 25% of females demonstrated avoidance tendencies when stressed, while 83% of males used problem-solving strategies. Reactions following trauma among the nurses were predominantly negative, and included feelings of frustration and self-doubt. These findings support the eminent need for hospital organizations to take a more person-centered approach when dealing with workplace stress