Nurses’ worry or concern and early recognition of deteriorating patients on general wards in acute care hospitals: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION:Nurses often recognize deterioration in patients through intuition rather than through routine measurement of vital signs. Adding the 'worry or concern' sign to the Rapid Response System provides opportunities for nurses to act upon their intuitive feelings. Identifying what triggers nurses to be worried or concerned might help to put intuition into words, and potentially empower nurses to act upon their intuitive feelings and obtain medical assistance in an early stage of deterioration. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the signs and symptoms that trigger nurses' worry or concern about a patient's condition.METHODS:We searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo and Cochrane Library (Clinical Trials) using synonyms related to the three concepts: 'nurses', 'worry/concern' and 'deterioration'. We included studies concerning adult patients on general wards in acute care hospitals. The search was performed from the start of the databases until 14 February 2014.RESULTS:The search resulted in 4,006 records, and 18 studies (five quantitative, nine qualitative and four mixed-methods designs) were included in the review. A total of 37 signs and symptoms reflecting the nature of the criterion worry or concern emerged from the data and were summarized in 10 general indicators. The results showed that worry or concern can be present with or without change in vital signs.CONCLUSIONS:The signs and symptoms we found in the literature reflect the nature of nurses' worry or concern, and nurses may incorporate these signs in their assessment of the patient and their decision to call for assistance. The fact that it is present before changes in vital signs suggests potential for improving care in an early stage of deterioration

Speaking Up for Fundamental Care: the ILC Aalborg Statement.

OBJECTIVE: The International Learning Collaborative (ILC) is an organisation dedicated to understanding why fundamental care, the care required by all patients regardless of clinical condition, fails to be provided in healthcare systems globally. At its 11th annual meeting in 2019, nursing leaders from 11 countries, together with patient representatives, confirmed that patients' fundamental care needs are still being ignored and nurses are still afraid to 'speak up' when these care failures occur. While the ILC's efforts over the past decade have led to increased recognition of the importance of fundamental care, it is not enough. To generate practical, sustainable solutions, we need to substantially rethink fundamental care and its contribution to patient outcomes and experiences, staff well-being, safety and quality, and the economic viability of healthcare systems. KEY ARGUMENTS: We present five propositions for radically transforming fundamental care delivery:Value: fundamental care must be foundational to all caring activities, systems and institutionsTalk: fundamental care must be explicitly articulated in all caring activities, systems and institutions.Do: fundamental care must be explicitly actioned and evaluated in all caring activities, systems and institutions.Own: fundamental care must be owned by each individual who delivers care, works in a system that is responsible for care or works in an institution whose mission is to deliver care. RESEARCH: fundamental care must undergo systematic and high-quality investigations to generate the evidence needed to inform care practices and shape health systems and education curricula. CONCLUSION: For radical transformation within health systems globally, we must move beyond nursing and ensure all members of the healthcare team-educators, students, consumers, clinicians, leaders, researchers, policy-makers and politicians-value, talk, do, own and research fundamental care. It is only through coordinated, collaborative effort that we will, and must, achieve real change

Speaking up for Fundamental Care: The ILC Aalborg Statement

This is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recordObjective The International Learning Collaborative (ILC) is an organisation dedicated to understanding why fundamental care, the care required by all patients regardless of clinical condition, fails to be provided in healthcare systems globally. At its 11th annual meeting in 2019, nursing leaders from 11 countries, together with patient representatives, confirmed that patients' fundamental care needs are still being ignored and nurses are still afraid to 'speak up' when these care failures occur. While the ILC's efforts over the past decade have led to increased recognition of the importance of fundamental care, it is not enough. To generate practical, sustainable solutions, we need to substantially rethink fundamental care and its contribution to patient outcomes and experiences, staff well-being, safety and quality, and the economic viability of healthcare systems. Key arguments We present five propositions for radically transforming fundamental care delivery: Value: fundamental care must be foundational to all caring activities, systems and institutions Talk: fundamental care must be explicitly articulated in all caring activities, systems and institutions. Do: fundamental care must be explicitly actioned and evaluated in all caring activities, systems and institutions. Own: fundamental care must be owned by each individual who delivers care, works in a system that is responsible for care or works in an institution whose mission is to deliver care. Research: fundamental care must undergo systematic and high-quality investigations to generate the evidence needed to inform care practices and shape health systems and education curricula. Conclusion For radical transformation within health systems globally, we must move beyond nursing and ensure all members of the healthcare team - educators, students, consumers, clinicians, leaders, researchers, policy-makers and politicians - value, talk, do, own and research fundamental care. It is only through coordinated, collaborative effort that we will, and must, achieve real change

How to promote healthy behaviours in patients? An overview of evidence for behaviour change techniques

To identify the evidence for the effectiveness of behaviour change techniques, when used by health-care professionals, in accomplishing health-promoting behaviours in patients. Reviews were used to extract data at a study level. A taxonomy was used to classify behaviour change techniques. We included 23 systematic reviews: 14 on smoking cessation, 6 on physical exercise, and 2 on healthy diets and 1 on both exercise and diets. None of the behaviour change techniques demonstrated clear effects in a convincing majority of the studies in which they were evaluated. Techniques targeting knowledge (n = 210 studies) and facilitation of behaviour (n = 172) were evaluated most frequently. However, self-monitoring of behaviour (positive effects in 56% of the studies), risk communication (52%) and use of social support (50%) were most often identified as effective. Insufficient insight into appropriateness of technique choice and quality of technique delivery hinder precise conclusions. Relatively, however, self-monitoring of behaviour, risk communication and use of social support are most effective. Health professionals should avoid thinking that providing knowledge, materials and professional support will be sufficient for patients to accomplish change and consider alternative strategies which may be more effective

The impact of home parenteral nutrition on daily life - a review

Background: Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is a lifesaving therapy in patients withsevere intestinal failure that can be administered at home. However, patients have to facecomplex technological nutritional support issues at home, which will influence theirpersonal life.Objectives: This review aims to describe the implications of home parenteral nutrition(HPN) on the quality of life, as experienced by patients, as well as to describe thecaregiver’s reactions regarding these notions.Search strategy: A systematic review of the literature published between 1965 and 2005was conducted. Cinahl, Medline, and Psychlit databases were searched. Systematic dataextraction and narrative data synthesis were performed.Selection criteria: Papers were included if they described original research published in apeer reviewed journal, with a focus on adult patients on HPN and/or their familycaregivers.Data collection (and analysis): A standardised record was used for data extraction.Main results: A total of 26 studies were included. The quality of life reported by patientswas moderate to good, but psychological problems, e.g. depression and anxiety, werecommon. Social life was disturbed due to the venous access device, the time schedule forHPN administration, the inability to have normal oral intake, gastrointestinal mobilityproblems, and physical complaints. Frequently mentioned somatic problems includedfatigue, diarrhoea, pain, polyuria during infusion and sleep disruption.Despite social restrictions, depression and fatigue, caregivers reported their overall QoL as similar to the norms for healthy populations