Search

BackgroundChronic diseases, such as opioid use disorder (OUD) require a multifaceted scientific approach to address their evolving complexity. The Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science's (Council) four nursing science priority areas (precision health; global health, determinants of health, and big data/data analytics) were established to provide a framework to address current complex health problems.PurposeTo examine OUD research through the nursing science priority areas and evaluate the appropriateness of the priority areas as a framework for research on complex health conditions.MethodOUD was used as an exemplar to explore the relevance of the nursing science priorities for future research.FindingsResearch in the four priority areas is advancing knowledge in OUD identification, prevention, and treatment. Intersection of OUD research population focus and methodological approach was identified among the priority areas.DiscussionThe Council priorities provide a relevant framework for nurse scientists to address complex health problems like OUD.

ImportanceMedical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection.ObjectiveTo compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient.Main outcomes and measuresError and AE rates.ResultsOverall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates.Conclusions and relevanceFamilies provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.

Parents of adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) experience the challenges of navigating the health care system, locating information about ASD, lacking an understanding of prescribed medications, and experiencing minimal [...]

Objective: To examine the effect of neonatal intensive care unit environmental characteristics (perceived levels of light and sound, and time of day) in open unit wards and single-family rooms (SFRs) on oral feeding outcomes in preterm infants. Design: Data were collected at each scheduled oral feeding for 87 preterm infants from the first oral feeding until discharge. Data included the prescribed volume of feeding and the volume consumed, the infant's level of wakefulness before feeding, and the nurse's perception of light and sound. Results: Data were collected on 5111 feedings in the ward unit and 5802 in the SFR unit from feedings involving 87 preterm infants. Light and sound were rated significantly lower in the SFR (χ² = 139 and 1654.8, respectively). Feeding times of 9 am, 12 noon, and 3 pm were associated with the highest perceived levels of light and sound, regardless of unit design (P, 0.0001). Moderate light levels and feeding times of 12, 3, and 6 am were associated with improved feeding outcomes. Infants consumed a greater proportion of their prescribed feeding volume when fed in the open ward and when awake before feeding. Conclusion: Further study on the clinical effects of unit design is needed, as is study on the effects of environmental stimuli, so that interventions can be appropriately developed and tailored for infants needing the most support for optimal development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]