Search

Background Concerns about the sufficiency and dedication of the healthcare workforce have arisen as the baby boomer generation is retiring and the generation Y might have different working environment demands. Aims and objective To describe the association between work engagement of healthcare professionals’ and its background factors at five Finnish university hospitals. Methods Survey data were collected from nurses, physicians and administrative staff (n = 561) at all five university hospitals in Finland. Data were collected using an electronic questionnaire that comprised the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (9 items) and 13 questions regarding the respondents’ backgrounds. Descriptive and correlational analyses were used to examine the data. Results Most respondents were female (85%) and nursing staff (72%). Baby boomers (49%) were the largest generational cohort. The work engagement composite mean for the total sample was 5.0, indicating high work engagement. Significant differences in work engagement existed only among sex and age groups. The highest work engagement scores were among administrative staff. Conclusions Work engagement among healthcare professionals in Finnish university hospitals is high. High work engagement might be explained by suitable job resources and challenges, as well as opportunities provided by a frontline care environment. Attention should especially be paid to meeting the needs of young people entering the workforce to strengthen their dedication and absorption.

Background: Ward rounds serve as a forum for sharing information between the patient and health care professionals. In order to ensure the multiprofessional nature of the rounds, the nurse’s expertise and knowledge of the patient’s situation is needed. The nurse’s presence during the ward rounds is necessary to ensure patient satisfaction and the quality of the patient’s treatment, even though nurses rarely participate in discussions during the ward rounds. Aim: To describe how active nurses are as discussion openers during ward rounds and to compare the activity of nurses working in different specialities as discussion openers, in addition to investigating the significance of background factors. Methods: The data were collected in a Finnish university hospital in 2012-2013 by observing ward round situations with patients (N=365) on different speciality wards using an observation form. Results: The nurses were fairly passive in initiating discussions about the patient’s physical status and passive in opening a discussion on the patient’s psychological status. The nurses were passive in opening discussions concerning the planning or evaluation of the patient’s treatment. Nurses specializing in gastric surgery or internal medicine in gastroenterology initiated discussions more actively than nurses in other specialties. Nurses opened discussions more often in the context of emergency care patients than in connection with patients who had arrived at the hospital for an elective procedure. Conclusion: Nurses should use their expertise in opening discussions on the patient’s physical and psychological state, as well as decision-making regarding the planning and evaluation of treatment. Support from managers in different professional groups is important for increasing the participation of nurses during ward rounds. In the future, it would be interesting to study the shared experience of nurses, physicians and patients regarding the ward rounds, as well as the patients’ own experiences.

The development of evidence-based practice is a major current challenge in the fields of nursing practice and nursing research. A concerted effort is needed to develop and test interventions and to assess their impacts. The illness of one family member inevitably affects other family members and the whole family. Nursing interventions should be so designed that they support and enhance the life situation of both patients and their families. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review of nursing intervention studies on patients and family members published in international databases in 2001-2006. The main focus was on the targets, methods and impacts of interventions. The articles for the review were searched from Medline and Cinahl (n = 31) and analysed by content analysis and the RE-AIM evaluation model. The results showed that the interventions were targeted at patients with chronic diseases and individual family members. In addition to support components, the interventions included elements of teaching, counselling and education. The preliminary evidence indicated that the interventions were effective in relieving the burden of care and depressive symptoms of family members of Alzheimer, cancer, stroke and schizophrenia patients as well as in promoting their quality of life and coping. Nursing interventions are still in the development and testing phase. The challenge for the future is to broaden the scope and application of interventions in different nursing environments. Assessments of the efficacy of interventions should also consider their adaptation, implementation and maintenance in practical nursing.

Physicians' rounds have traditionally been used to assess and plan patients' treatments and to teach medical students. According to the studies analysed in the review, patients have mostly been satisfied with the information received in the course of the physicians' rounds and eager to be involved in planning and decision-making concerning their treatment. The development challenges are related to improving the confidentiality of information. Interaction between doctor, patient and nurse is slight, as is the involvement of nurses in processing matters. Various checklists would make rounds more systematic. Despite their essentially passive role, medical students see that rounds create useful learning environments.

Background: Nursing care models provide the infrastructure for organizing and delivering care to patients and families. Over the decades, different models have waxed and waned. Since the 1980s, the primary nursing model has gained increasing prominence. However, there is no systematic research evidence on the effects of this model for patients, their family members, nursing staff or the care organization. This subject has much current relevance because of the requirement to develop evidence-based nursing care. Objective: To describe the effects of the primary nursing model for patients, their family members, nursing staff and the care organization. Design: A systematic literature review. The studies selected for review (n=9) were appraised for quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, as developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project. Data sources: The research data were collected from four databases from January 1990 to March 2013. Results: Research on the effects of the primary nursing model has largely been restricted to the effects for patients and nursing staff. No data are available on how it affects the patient’s family members or the care organization. The preliminary evidence suggests that the primary nursing model may have beneficial effects for patients in the context of maternity care. There is less evidence of the primary nursing model’s positive effects for nursing staff. However, it is possible that the model contributes to an increased sense of job control and autonomy. Conclusion: The existing body of research has methodological shortcomings, and more RCT studies are needed to establish the effects of the primary nursing model, for instance on the organization’s costs, nurses’ job satisfaction and staff retention. Further research is also needed into the effects of the primary nursing model on numerically measurable outcomes, such as medication errors during hospital care and the length of treatment periods.