Search

OBJECTIVE The first objective of this scoping review was to identify all the tools designed to measure movement or mobility in adults. The second objective was to compare the tools to the conceptual definitions of movement and mobility by mapping them to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). INTRODUCTION The concepts of movement and mobility are distinct concepts that are often conflated, and the differences are important to patient care. Movement is a change in the place or position of a part of the body or of the whole body. Mobility is derived from movement and is defined as the ability to move with ease. Researchers and clinicians, including nurses, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who work with adults and in rehabilitation, need to be confident that they are measuring the outcome of interest. INCLUSION CRITERIA This scoping review considered studies that included participants who are adults, aged 19 and older, with any level of ability or disability. The concepts of interest were tools that measured movement or mobility relative to the human body. Studies were considered regardless of country of origin, health care setting, or sociocultural setting. METHODS CINAHL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched in June 2018 and OpenGrey, Dissertation Abstracts International, and Google Scholar were searched in November 2018. The searches were limited to articles in English, and the date range was from the inception of the database to the current date. Data were extracted from the studies using a custom data extraction tool. Once tools were identified for analysis, they were coded using the table format developed by Cieza and colleagues. RESULTS There were 702 unique tools identified, with 651 of them available to be coded for the ICF. There were 385 ICF codes used when coding the tools. From these codes, the percentage of codes of the defining attributes of movement and mobility that were covered could be calculated, as well as the percentage of tool items that were linked to the antecedents, consequences, or defining attributes of movement or mobility. CONCLUSIONS Although there are many tools that measure only movement or mobility, there are many that measure a mixture of the defining attributes as well as the antecedents and consequences. The tool name alone should not be considered a guarantee of the concept measured, and tool selection should be done with a critical eye. This study provides a starting point from which clinicians and researchers can find tools that measure the concepts of movement and mobility of interest and importance to their patient population.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to describe and compare the predictive value of existing frailty indices for postoperative morbidity and mortality. More specifically, the review question is: what postoperative outcomes can be predicted by frailty indices in elderly patients? INCLUSION CRITERIA Types of participants Studies that include surgical patients, from any speciality, over the age of 65, and of both sexes will be considered. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest Studies that evaluate or employ validated frailty indices or scales in the context of perioperative care will be considered. This list is not exhaustive but will include the following indices: the Frail Elderly Functional Assessment Questionnaire, the Clinical Global Impression of Change in Physical Frailty, the Frailty Index-Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, the Clinical Frailty Scale and the Frailty Phenotype. Types of outcomes Only studies that include the following outcome measures will be considered: 1) length of in-patient hospital stay; 2) postoperative complications of all types; 3) discharge to an alternate level of care facility or status; and 4) mortality. Some specific examples of postoperative complications include: Intensive Care Unit stay, prolonged mechanical ventilation and respiratory failure.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE The objective of this scoping review is to identify the range of patient safety events that includes patient safety errors, harms or near misses that student nurses make while nursing in their clinical placements. The question that will guide this review is: what types of hazards, healthcare-associated harms, patient safety incidents, reportable circumstances, near misses, harmful incidents, no harm incidents and injuries to patients are being made and reported by nursing students during their practice in healthcare facilities?

Review Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to analyze and synthesize best available evidence on the perspectives of patients and family members who have encountered adverse events while receiving health care. Review Question: The specific review question to be addressed is: What are the thoughts, perceptions, and experiences of patients and family members to the occurrence of adverse events while receiving health care? Inclusion Criteria: Types of Participants: This review will consider patients with diverse diagnoses and conditions experiencing an adverse health care event while receiving health care. Because family members often play an integral role in the care of patients during periods of illness and health crisis, they will be included in the review and their perspectives about the occurrence of adverse events will also be considered. There will be no age limitation for the inclusion of participants in this review and all health care settings will be considered, for example, acute, emergency, mental health, pediatric, home, and long-term care Health care providers may include, but are not limited to, nurses (RN and RPN), physicians, midwives, personal support workers, health care aides, technicians and technologists of all diagnostic areas where care occurs. Phenomenon of Interest: The phenomenon of interest is what it was like to experience an adverse health care event while receiving health care including patients and/or family members’ thoughts, perceptions, and reactions to such events. Patient perspective of an adverse event is defined for this review as the subjective thoughts/viewpoints/opinions/feelings/psychological reactions that pertain to the patient experience alone or to family members who have had the experience with a loved one.

Review question/objective The objective of this systematic review is to compare the use of self-assessment instruments versus an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to measure the competence of healthcare learners and healthcare professionals. The specific question that will guide this review is: When measuring the competence of healthcare learners and healthcare professionals is the evaluation obtained by self-assessment instruments comparable to performance on an objective structured clinical examination? Inclusion criteria Types of participants In this review all healthcare learners and healthcare professionals will be considered, including but not limited to physicians, nurses, dentists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, social workers and respiratory therapists. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest In this review studies in which participants are first administered a self-assessment (related to performance), followed by an objective structured clinical examination will be considered; the results of which will then be compared. The review will consider studies that explore the evaluation of competence by self-assessment, which is then compared with the evaluation of competence using an objective structured clinical examination. Types of outcomes In this review studies that include the following outcome measures will be considered: competence, confidence, performance, self-efficacy, knowledge and empathy as defined in the background section.