11 research outputs found
Learning Style Preferences And Learning Strategies In Intensive Care Nurse Education
Learning styles and the promotion of effective learning environments have been a focus of research for many decades. It is important for Educators to be aware of variations in learner needs, interests, abilities and previous learning so that educational strategies can be tailored accordingly. This study focused on recognition of differences in individual learning styles and the importance of relating learning strategies to learning styles as part of a competency-based educational approach. The study explored the learning style preferences of a group of twenty Registered Nurses undertaking a structured learning program in Intensive Care. Learning strategies used in this program were also explored to enable comparison between preferred learning styles and strategies. Exploration of individual learner preferences and learning strategies was undertaken using the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) devised by Soloman & Felder. Participants were also asked to indicate their perceived accuracy of the assessment and provide suggestions for improvement in educational support. Results from this study showed that there were some significant differences between individuals' preferred learning styles and the learning strategies used in the program. This was particularly evident in the area of visual versus verbal (or written) learning aspects where the majority of learners demonstrated a preference for visual learning while the learning program utilised mostly written learning strategies. This led to a change in the educational support offered to students and also provided input into the overall program review. Furthermore, it gave directions for future research regarding the value of learning style preferences assessment in program development, implementation and evaluation. It is envisaged that the benefits of this enhanced and individualised support for learning could have a positive impact on nursing staff recruitment and retention for the organisation involved
Nursing Care of the Mechanically Ventilated Patient: What Does the Evidence Say? Part Two
The care of the mechanically ventilated patient is a fundamental component of a nurse's clinical practice in the intensive care unit (ICU). Published work relating to the numerous nursing issues of the care of the mechanically ventilated patient in the ICU is growing significantly, yet is fragmentary by nature. The purpose of this paper is to provide a single comprehensive examination of the evidence related to the care of the mechanically ventilated patient. In part one of this two-part paper, the evidence on nursing care of the mechanically ventilated patient was explored with specific focus on patient safety: particularly patient and equipment assessment. This article, part two, examines the evidence related to the mechanically ventilated patient's comfort: patient position, hygiene, management of stressors (such as communication, sleep disturbance and isolation), pain management and sedation
Nursing Care of the Mechanically Ventilated Patient: What Does the Evidence Say? Part One
The care of the mechanically ventilated patient is at the core of a nurse's clinical practice in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Published work relating to the numerous nursing issues of the care of the mechanically ventilated patient in the ICU is growing significantly. Literature focuses on patient assessment and management strategies for patient stressors, pain and sedation. Yet this literature is fragmentary by nature. The purpose of this paper is to provide a single comprehensive examination of the evidence related to the care of the mechanically ventilated patient. In part one of this two-part paper, the evidence on nursing care of the mechanically ventilated patient is explored with specific focus on patient safety: particularly patient and equipment assessment. Part two of the paper examines the evidence related to the mechanically ventilated patient's comfort, the patient/family unit, patient position, hygiene, management of stressors, pain management and sedation
Oxygen targets and 6-month outcome after out of hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned sub-analysis of the targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial
International audienceAbstract Background Optimal oxygen targets in patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest are uncertain. The primary aim of this study was to describe the values of partial pressure of oxygen values (PaO 2 ) and the episodes of hypoxemia and hyperoxemia occurring within the first 72 h of mechanical ventilation in out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. The secondary aim was to evaluate the association of PaO 2 with patientsâ outcome. Methods Preplanned secondary analysis of the targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after OHCA (TTM2) trial. Arterial blood gases values were collected from randomization every 4 h for the first 32 h, and then, every 8 h until day 3. Hypoxemia was defined as PaO 2 â300 mmHg. Mortality and poor neurological outcome (defined according to modified Rankin scale) were collected at 6 months. Results 1418 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 64â±â14 years, and 292 patients (20.6%) were female. 24.9% of patients had at least one episode of hypoxemia, and 7.6% of patients had at least one episode of severe hyperoxemia. Both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia were independently associated with 6-month mortality, but not with poor neurological outcome. The best cutoff point associated with 6-month mortality for hypoxemia was 69 mmHg (Risk Ratio, RRâ=â1.009, 95% CI 0.93â1.09), and for hyperoxemia was 195 mmHg (RRâ=â1.006, 95% CI 0.95â1.06). The time exposure, i.e., the area under the curve (PaO 2 -AUC), for hyperoxemia was significantly associated with mortality ( p =â0.003). Conclusions In OHCA patients, both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia are associated with 6-months mortality, with an effect mediated by the timing exposure to high values of oxygen. Precise titration of oxygen levels should be considered in this group of patients. Trial registration : clinicaltrials.gov NCT02908308 , Registered September 20, 2016
A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial
Background
Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework.
Methods
We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zeroâone inflated beta regression.
Results
The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI]âââ3.30%; 3.40%],âââ0.39% [95% CrIâââ3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrIâââ2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference ofâââ3.55 days [95% CrIâââ6.38;âââ0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrIâââ1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66.
Conclusions
In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation