• Comparison of reports of missed nursing care: Registered Nurses vs. practical nurses in hospitals.

      Bragadóttir, Helga; Kalisch, Beatrice J; 1 Faculty of Nursing, University of Iceland and Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland. 2 School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. (Wiley, 2018-09-01)
      Missed nursing care is an error of omission defined as standard, required nursing care that is not completed or is seriously delayed. Study findings from around the world show that missed nursing care is a global concern. The purpose of this study was to compare reports of missed nursing care by two types of nurses - registered nurses and practical nurses - in acute care hospitals in Iceland. Former studies in the USA indicate a variance in reports of missed nursing care by staff with different roles. This was a cross-sectional descriptive study using the MISSCARE Survey-Icelandic questionnaire for data collection. The questionnaire asks about the amount of missed nursing care on the unit for 24 nursing elements (Part A) and 17 reasons of care being missed (Part B). Participants were nursing staff from medical, surgical and intensive care units in all hospitals in Iceland. A t-test for independent groups showed a significant difference for the overall missed nursing care score (Part A) between registered nurses (M = 2.09, SD = 0.51) and practical nurses (M = 1.82, SD = 0.59) [t(541) = 5.703, p < 0.001]. A comparison of the overall mean score for reasons of missed nursing care (Part B) between registered nurses (M = 2.32, SD = 0.38) and practical nurses (M = 2.21, SD = 0.62) indicated a significant difference in their reporting [t(299) = 2.210, p = 0.028]. In spite of the overall significant difference in ratings of the elements and reasons for missed nursing care by registered nurses and practical nurses, a pattern is evident in the ranking of the elements of nursing care being missed and reasons.
    • Variability in functional outcome and treatment practices by treatment center after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: analysis of International Cardiac Arrest Registry.

      May, Teresa L; Lary, Christine W; Riker, Richard R; Friberg, Hans; Patel, Nainesh; Søreide, Eldar; McPherson, John A; Undén, Johan; Hand, Robert; Sunde, Kjetil; et al. (Springer, 2019-05-01)
      Functional outcomes vary between centers after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and are partially explained by pre-existing health status and arrest characteristics, while the effects of in-hospital treatments on functional outcome are less understood. We examined variation in functional outcomes by center after adjusting for patient- and arrest-specific characteristics and evaluated how in-hospital management differs between high- and low-performing centers. Analysis of observational registry data within the International Cardiac Arrest Registry was used to perform a hierarchical model of center-specific risk standardized rates for good outcome, adjusted for demographics, pre-existing functional status, and arrest-related factors with treatment center as a random effect variable. We described the variability in treatments and diagnostic tests that may influence outcome at centers with adjusted rates significantly above and below registry average. A total of 3855 patients were admitted to an ICU following cardiac arrest with return of spontaneous circulation. The overall prevalence of good outcome was 11-63% among centers. After adjustment, center-specific risk standardized rates for good functional outcome ranged from 0.47 (0.37-0.58) to 0.20 (0.12-0.26). High-performing centers had faster time to goal temperature, were more likely to have goal temperature of 33 °C, more likely to perform unconscious cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention, and had differing prognostication practices than low-performing centers. Center-specific differences in outcomes after OHCA after adjusting for patient-specific factors exist. This variation could partially be explained by in-hospital management differences. Future research should address the contribution of these factors to the differences in outcomes after resuscitation.