Search

Objectives: Translating the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) into Dutch and assessing the inter‐rater reliability among community nurses. Methods: The original version of the OHAT was translated following the five stages of the 'Guidelines for the Process of Cross‐Cultural Adaptation'. After a forward and backward translation, consensus on the pre‐final version was obtained in an expert panel discussion. This version was pre‐tested on its comprehensibility among 31 nurses and hereafter finalized. Then, inter‐rater reliability of the OHAT‐NL was determined by two trained nurses during oral assessments of 37 care‐dependent community‐dwelling older people. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Cohen's kappa statistic for individual items were estimated. Results: Feedback from nurses in the pre‐test did lead to minor changes of the OHAT‐NL. Inter‐rater reliability was good (ICC 0.79; 95% CI 0.63–0.89) on the total score. Agreement on item level ranged from fair to very good, the kappa ranged from 0.36–0.89. Conclusions: OHAT is now available in Dutch having good inter‐rater reliability among trained community nurses. Future research can further validate the OHAT‐NL and develop intervention according to total OHAT‐NL scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Choosing Wisely is an international movement that stimulates conversations about unnecessary care. The campaign created five recommendations including a statement that less wound care is sometimes better. Aims: The study aims to evaluate nurses' and physicians' adherence to the Choosing Wisely recommendations for acute wound care in the Netherlands and the barriers and facilitators to improve this. Design: This is a mixed methods study using a survey and interviews. Methods: The survey was completed by 171 nurses and 71 physicians from November 2017 to February 2018. A total of 17 nurses and 6 physicians were interviewed. Results: Awareness of the five recommendations ranged from 62% to 89% for nurses and 46% to 85% for physicians. However, up to 15% of the nurses and 28% of physicians were aware but did not adhere to the recommendations. Barriers to adhering were a lack of knowledge, the work environment and perceptions of patients' preferences. Repeated attention, cost‐consciousness and an open culture facilitated the implementation. Conclusion: Although most nurses and physicians were aware of the recommendations, not all adhered to them. Increasing awareness is not enough for successful implementation. A tailored approach that removes the barriers is necessary, such as increasing knowledge about wounds and changing the work environment. Summary statement: What is already known on this topic? Less wound care is sometimes better: cleaning wounds with tap water only, not bathing wounds, using simple bandages and not using bandages on wounds healing by primary intention leads to better wound care for lower costs.It is unknown to what extent this is known and practiced by nurses and physicians and what barriers and facilitators they experience in practicing this. What this paper adds? Although the majority of nurses and physicians were aware of the Choosing Wisely recommendations for acute wounds, not all adhered to them.Awareness is not always sufficient for successful implementation, which requires a broader approach that targets the barriers. The implications of this paper Implementation of these recommendations can be improved by increasing knowledge about wounds and wound care, changing the work environment, and verifying the patient's presumed preferences regarding wound care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: 1. Value: fundamental care must be foundational to all caring activities, systems and institutions 2. Talk: fundamental care must be explicitly articulated in all caring activities, systems and institutions. 3. Do: fundamental care must be explicitly actioned and evaluated in all caring activities, systems and institutions. 4. 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. 5. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Society is facing a global shortage of 17 million health care workers, along with increasing health care demands from a growing number of older adults. Social robots are being considered as solutions to part of this problem.Objective: Our objective is to evaluate the quality of care perceived by patients and caregivers for an integrated care pathway in an outpatient clinic using a social robot for patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) interviews versus the currently used professional interviews.Methods: A multicenter, two-parallel-group, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial was used to test for noninferiority of the quality of care delivered through robot-assisted care. The randomization was performed using a computer-generated table. The setting consisted of two outpatient clinics, and the study took place from July to December 2019. Of 419 patients who visited the participating outpatient clinics, 110 older patients met the criteria for recruitment. Inclusion criteria were the ability to speak and read Dutch and being assisted by a participating health care professional. Exclusion criteria were serious hearing or vision problems, serious cognitive problems, and paranoia or similar psychiatric problems. The intervention consisted of a social robot conducting a 36-item PROM. As the main outcome measure, the customized Consumer Quality Index (CQI) was used, as reported by patients and caregivers for the outpatient pathway of care.Results: In total, 75 intermediately frail older patients were included in the study, randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups, and processed: 36 female (48%) and 39 male (52%); mean age 77.4 years (SD 7.3), range 60-91 years. There was no significant difference in the total patient CQI scores between the patients included in the robot-assisted care pathway (mean 9.27, SD 0.65, n=37) and those in the control group (mean 9.00, SD 0.70, n=38): P=.08, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58. There was no significant difference in the total CQI scores between caregivers in the intervention group (mean 9.21, SD 0.76, n=30) and those in the control group (mean 9.09, SD 0.60, n=35): P=.47, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.46. No harm or unintended effects occurred.Conclusions: Geriatric patients and their informal caregivers valued robot-assisted and nonrobot-assisted care pathways equally.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundObjectiveDesignMethodsResultsConclusionTransformation of healthcare is necessary to ensure patients receive high-quality care. Working with the evidence-based practice (EBP) principles enables nurses to make this shift. Although working according to these principles is becoming more common, nurses base their actions too much on traditions and intuition. Therefore, to promote EBP in nursing practice and improve related education, more insight into nurses’ needs is necessary to overcome existing EBP barriers.To identify the current needs to work with EBP principles among hospital and community care nurses and student nurses.A qualitative, exploratory approach with focus group discussionsData was collected between February and December 2020 through 5 focus group discussions with 25 nurses and student nurses from a hospital, a community care organisation, and nursing education schools (bachelor and vocational). Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, and the main themes were synchronised to the seven domains from the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist.Nurses and student nurses experience EBP as complex and require more EBP knowledge and reliable, ready-to-use evidence. They wanted to be facilitated in access to evidence, the opportunity to share insights with colleagues and more time to work on EBP. The fulfilment of these needs serves to enhance motivation to engage with evidence-based practice (EBP), facilitate personal development, and empower nurses and student nurses to take more leadership in working according to EBP principles and improve healthcare delivery.Nurses experience difficulties applying EBP principles and need support with their implementation. Nurses’ and student nurses’ needs include obtaining more EBP knowledge and access to tailored and ready-to-use information. They also indicated the need for role models, autonomy, incentives, dedicated time, and incorporation of EBP in daily work practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]