Search

Aim: To describe the activities nurses perceived to be delegable to other staff (delegable activities) in order to estimate the time nurses spend on delegable activities and explore nurses' reasons for not delegating these activities. Design: Mixed‐methods explanatory sequential. Methods: In total, 236 nurses from 27 medical and surgical wards of five hospitals in northern Italy completed a web‐based survey during a single shift between June and July 2022. Minutes spent on delegable activities, staff member to whom participants could have delegated and reason(s) for not delegating were reported. Chief nurses provided specific wards' characteristics using a paper‐and‐pencil questionnaire. Twenty semi‐structured interviews were conducted to explore delegable activities and reasons for not delegating. Quantitative and qualitative results were merged using joint displays. Results: Participants spent approximately one‐quarter of their time performing delegable activities, mainly delegable to nurse aides or nurse clerks, and performed due to a lack/shortage of staff or their concurrent participation in other activities. Participants recognized that activities requiring clinical assessment and decision‐making skills cannot be delegated, whereas technical activities and indirect care should be delegated. Organizational, structural and cultural factors, as well as patient characteristics, available staff and experience affected delegation, leading nurses to perform delegable activities to ensure patient care. Conclusion: Nurses spend a considerable part of their time on delegable activities due to a lack of staff or support services and suboptimal organization, which could be addressed by optimal staff management, but also to the complexity of the contexts, including individual and cultural factors that should be addressed through policy interventions. Impact: This study estimates the time nurses spend on delegable activities in acute care settings. Our findings highlighted the reasons that sustain the decision not to delegate that policymakers, healthcare managers, and nurse educators should consider to promote nurses' delegation skills. Reporting Methods: MMR checklist. Patient/Public Contribution: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Mutuality is a process in which the patient participates and is involved in decision‐making and care interventions. The aim of this study was to measure mutuality in the relationship between nurses and chronic illness patients. Methods: This study had a cross‐sectional design; the sample included 249 patients and 249 nurses. Mutuality was measured with the Nurse–Patient Mutuality in Chronic Illness scale. Results: Patients had higher scores in almost all items (p < 0.001). Patients demonstrate high reciprocity towards nurses and the ability to express and share their emotions. Patients consider nurses their point of reference and share with them their health goals. Nurses show more difficulty in being mutual with the patient, especially in the aspects related to the sharing of emotions, objectives, and planning. The egalitarian relationship score was low in both patients and nurses. Conclusion: These findings are important to consider at clinical, educational, organisational, and policy levels. Nurse education and organisation must push towards respect for the wishes of patients, the possibility of expressing their choices, and their involvement in the care plan. Practice Implications: In clinical practice, it is necessary to put the patients more at the centre, involving them in the identification of objectives and in making decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serious illness conversations aim to align the care process with the goals and preferences of adult patients suffering from any advanced disease. They represent a challenge for healthcare professionals and require specific skills. Conversation guides consistent with task-centered instructional strategies may be particularly helpful to improve the quality of communication. This study aims to develop, validate, and preliminarily evaluate an educational booklet to support Italian social and healthcare professionals in serious illness conversations. A three-step approach, including development, validation, and evaluation, was followed. A co-creation process with meaningful stakeholders led to the development of the booklet, validated by 15 experts on clarity, completeness, coherence, and relevance. It underwent testing on readability (Gulpease index, 0 = lowest-100 = maximum) and design (Baker Able Leaflet Design criteria, 0 = worst to 32 = best). Twenty-two professionals with different scope of practice and care settings evaluated acceptability (acceptable if score ≥30), usefulness, feasibility to use (1 = not at all to 10 = extremely), and perceived acquired knowledge (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). After four rounds of adjustments, the booklet scored 97% for relevance, 60 for readability, and 25/32 for design. In all, 18 (81.8%), 19 (86.4%) and 17 (77.3%) professionals deemed the booklet acceptable, moderate to highly useful, and feasible to use, respectively; 18/22 perceived gain in knowledge and all would recommend it to colleagues. The booklet has good readability, excellent design, high content validity, and a high degree of perceived usefulness and acquired knowledge. The booklet is tailored to users' priorities, mirrors their most frequent daily practice challenges, and offers 1-minute, 2-minute and 5-minute solutions for each scenario. The co-creation process ensured the development of an educational resource that could be useful regardless of the scope of practice and the care setting to support professionals in serious illness conversations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore Hospital Volunteers’ (HVs) motivations and experiences, as well as the strategies they adopt to overcome challenging situations during volunteering and the needs they perceive.