Nursing Activities Score: an updated guideline for its application in the Intensive Care Unit

Objetivo Describir la carga de trabajo de enfermería en Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI) de diferentes países según el Nursing Activities Score (NAS) y establecer una guía estandarizada para su utilización en UCI. Método estudio observacional en 19 UCIs de siete países (Noruega, Países Bajos, España, Polonia, Egipto, Grecia y Brasil) incluyendo 758 pacientes adultos en Noviembre de 2012. Resultados La puntuación media total en la escala NAS fue de 72.81% com valores entre 44.46% (España) y 101.8% (Noruega). Las medias NAS en Polonia, Grecia y Egipto fue de 83.0%, 64.59% y 57.11% respectivamente. El NAS medio fue similar en Brasil (53.98%) y los Países Bajos (50.96%). De los 23 ítems de la escala hubo problemas en la interpretación de 5 de ellos (21.74%). Este problema se resolvió mediante el consenso entre los investigadores. Conclusión El presente estudio demuestra variación en la carga de trabajo en UCI de diferentes países. La guía estandarizada de puntuación del NAS puede servir como una herramienta para resolver dudas en futuras aplicaciones.Objetivo Descrever a carga de trabalho de enfermagem em Unidades de Terapia Intensiva (UTI) de diferentes países, segundo o Nursing Activities Score (NAS), e padronizar o manual do NAS para uso nessas Unidades. Método Estudo transversal realizado em 19 UTI de sete países (Noruega, Holanda, Espanha, Polônia, Egito, Grécia e Brasil) com um total de 758 pacientes adultos, em novembro de 2012. Resultados A média do NAS total da amostra foi 72.81%, com variação entre 44.46% (Espanha) e101.81% (Noruega). Nas UTI da Polônia, Grécia e Egito, as médias foram de 83.00%, 64.59% e 57.11%, respectivamente. As médias NAS no Brasil (53.98%) e na Holanda (50,96%) foram similares. Dos 23 itens da escala, houve dúvidas no entendimento de 5(21.74%), que foram solucionados por consenso entre os pesquisadores. Conclusão O estudo mostrou diferentes cargas de trabalho de enfermagem nas UTI estudadas. Um manual padronizado do NAS para uso nessas unidades contribuirá para sanar dúvidas em futuras aplicações.Objective To describe nursing workload in Intensive Care Units (ICU) in different countries according to the scores obtained with Nursing Activities Score (NAS) and to verify the agreement among countries on the NAS guideline interpretation. Method This cross-sectional study considered 1-day measure of NAS (November 2012) obtained from 758 patients in 19 ICUs of seven countries (Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Egypt, Greece and Brazil). The Delphi technique was used in expertise meetings and consensus. Results The NAS score was 72.8% in average, ranging from 44.5% (Spain) to 101.8% (Norway). The mean NAS score from Poland, Greece and Egypt was 83.0%, 64.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The NAS score was similar in Brazil (54.0%) and in the Netherlands (51.0%). There were doubts in the understanding of five out 23 items of the NAS (21.7%) which were discussed until researchers’ consensus. Conclusion NAS score were different in the seven countries. Future studies must verify if the fine standardization of the guideline can have a impact on differences in the NAS results

Nursing Activities Score: an updated guideline for its application in the Intensive Care Unit

ABSTRACT Objective To describe nursing workload in Intensive Care Units (ICU) in different countries according to the scores obtained with Nursing Activities Score (NAS) and to verify the agreement among countries on the NAS guideline interpretation. Method This cross-sectional study considered 1-day measure of NAS (November 2012) obtained from 758 patients in 19 ICUs of seven countries (Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Egypt, Greece and Brazil). The Delphi technique was used in expertise meetings and consensus. Results The NAS score was 72.8% in average, ranging from 44.5% (Spain) to 101.8% (Norway). The mean NAS score from Poland, Greece and Egypt was 83.0%, 64.6% and 57.1%, respectively. The NAS score was similar in Brazil (54.0%) and in the Netherlands (51.0%). There were doubts in the understanding of five out 23 items of the NAS (21.7%) which were discussed until researchers’ consensus. Conclusion NAS score were different in the seven countries. Future studies must verify if the fine standardization of the guideline can have a impact on differences in the NAS results