Understanding the demographics, training experiences and decision-making practices of UK triage nurses.

Hugh Gorick, Marie McGee, Toby Smith
{"title":"Understanding the demographics, training experiences and decision-making practices of UK triage nurses.","authors":"Hugh Gorick, Marie McGee, Toby Smith","doi":"10.7748/en.2024.e2202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>International research suggests that triage nurses' decision-making practices and training experiences vary significantly across emergency departments (EDs). However, there does not appear to be similar research published in the UK. Understanding factors, such as demographics, training and decision-making could provide a picture of triage nurses working in UK EDs, identify the interventions required to improve practice and inform further research.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the demographics, training experiences and decision-making practices of registered nurses who assess patient acuity at triage in UK EDs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study used an online, descriptive, cross-sectional survey design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 51 triage nurses from across the UK responded to the survey. Most (61) had achieved a bachelor's degree as their highest qualification, while 3 had postgraduate qualifications. Respondents had a median of seven years since qualifying, six years working in their current ED and five years working in triage and used a range of titles to describe their role. Low staffing and busy ED environments increased respondents' stress levels, which affected confidence in triage decision-making abilities among less experienced nurses. More experienced respondents coped with their stress by relying on their knowledge and skills. Not all respondents had received triage training, and for those that had, the training varied in type and frequency across EDs. Overall, respondents had low satisfaction with the amount, quality and content of the training they had received.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need for safer staffing levels in EDs and greater support for staff welfare. The development of national standards, incorporating defined knowledge and skills and set time periods for refresher training, is required to enhance triage practice in EDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94315,"journal":{"name":"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7748/en.2024.e2202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: International research suggests that triage nurses' decision-making practices and training experiences vary significantly across emergency departments (EDs). However, there does not appear to be similar research published in the UK. Understanding factors, such as demographics, training and decision-making could provide a picture of triage nurses working in UK EDs, identify the interventions required to improve practice and inform further research.

Aim: To explore the demographics, training experiences and decision-making practices of registered nurses who assess patient acuity at triage in UK EDs.

Method: The study used an online, descriptive, cross-sectional survey design.

Results: A total of 51 triage nurses from across the UK responded to the survey. Most (61) had achieved a bachelor's degree as their highest qualification, while 3 had postgraduate qualifications. Respondents had a median of seven years since qualifying, six years working in their current ED and five years working in triage and used a range of titles to describe their role. Low staffing and busy ED environments increased respondents' stress levels, which affected confidence in triage decision-making abilities among less experienced nurses. More experienced respondents coped with their stress by relying on their knowledge and skills. Not all respondents had received triage training, and for those that had, the training varied in type and frequency across EDs. Overall, respondents had low satisfaction with the amount, quality and content of the training they had received.

Conclusion: There is a need for safer staffing levels in EDs and greater support for staff welfare. The development of national standards, incorporating defined knowledge and skills and set time periods for refresher training, is required to enhance triage practice in EDs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
了解英国分诊护士的人口统计、培训经历和决策实践。
背景:国际研究表明,不同急诊科(ED)的分诊护士在决策实践和培训经验方面存在很大差异。然而,英国似乎没有发表类似的研究。了解人口统计学、培训和决策等因素,可以了解英国急诊科分诊护士的工作情况,确定改善实践所需的干预措施,并为进一步研究提供信息。目的:探讨英国急诊科分诊时评估患者急性病程度的注册护士的人口统计学、培训经历和决策实践:研究采用在线、描述性、横断面调查设计:共有 51 名来自英国各地的分诊护士参与了调查。大多数人(61 人)的最高学历是学士学位,3 人拥有研究生学历。受访者获得资格后的工作年限中位数为 7 年,其中 6 年在目前所在的急诊室工作,5 年在分诊室工作,并使用各种头衔来描述自己的角色。人员配备不足和繁忙的急诊室环境增加了受访者的压力水平,影响了经验较少的护士对分诊决策能力的信心。经验丰富的受访者则依靠自己的知识和技能来应对压力。并非所有受访者都接受过分诊培训,对于接受过培训的受访者而言,不同急诊室的培训类型和频率也不尽相同。总体而言,受访者对所接受培训的数量、质量和内容的满意度较低:结论:急诊室需要更安全的人员配备水平和更大的员工福利支持。为加强急诊室的分诊实践,需要制定国家标准,纳入明确的知识和技能,并设定进修培训时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving psychosocial assessment of children and young people in the emergency department: a service evaluation. Delivering a mental health response vehicle service in Wales: a pilot initiative. Improving suicide risk screening in the emergency department. A strategic solution to preventing the harm associated with ambulance handover delays. Exploring the experiences of healthcare professionals when breaking bad news in major trauma care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1