Utilizing diverse cross-sectional assessment templates to instruct novice nurses in the neurology department about typical diseases.

Annals of medicine Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1080/07853890.2024.2440126
Qing-Mei Wang, Dong-Ping Shi, Shi-Jing Zhang
{"title":"Utilizing diverse cross-sectional assessment templates to instruct novice nurses in the neurology department about typical diseases.","authors":"Qing-Mei Wang, Dong-Ping Shi, Shi-Jing Zhang","doi":"10.1080/07853890.2024.2440126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to explore the utilization of diverse cross-sectional assessment templates for typical diseases in educating novice nurses in neurology departments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January and December 2019, all registered nurses who had worked for less than 10 years at our center, were enrolled in this retrospective study. They were divided into the observation (18 nurses) and control (17 nurses) groups. The control group received training on various cross-sectional assessments for typical diseases. A comparative analysis was conducted on clinical work ability, nursing quality, adverse events, and patient satisfaction between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 35 nurses participated in this study. The work ability score for nurses in the observation group was 97.42 ± 2.02 points, demonstrating a significant increase compared to the control group (92.17 ± 1.72 points) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Regarding the quality of care provided to critically ill patients, the observation group demonstrated a significantly higher score of 95.82 ± 1.31 points compared to the control group, which scored 87.70 ± 3.15 points (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The number of adverse events within one year after admission was notably lower in the observation group, with 8 cases, compared to 23 cases in the control group (<i>p</i> = 0.006). Additionally, nurses in the observation group achieved a higher patient satisfaction score compared to the control group (97.23 ± 1.78 vs. 92.19 ± 1.49 points, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The utilization of diverse cross-sectional assessment templates and instructional videos for typical diseases in the training of novice nurses in the neurology department enhanced nursing quality, improved clinical practical abilities, and improved patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":93874,"journal":{"name":"Annals of medicine","volume":"57 1","pages":"2440126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2024.2440126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the utilization of diverse cross-sectional assessment templates for typical diseases in educating novice nurses in neurology departments.

Methods: Between January and December 2019, all registered nurses who had worked for less than 10 years at our center, were enrolled in this retrospective study. They were divided into the observation (18 nurses) and control (17 nurses) groups. The control group received training on various cross-sectional assessments for typical diseases. A comparative analysis was conducted on clinical work ability, nursing quality, adverse events, and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

Results: A total of 35 nurses participated in this study. The work ability score for nurses in the observation group was 97.42 ± 2.02 points, demonstrating a significant increase compared to the control group (92.17 ± 1.72 points) (p < 0.001). Regarding the quality of care provided to critically ill patients, the observation group demonstrated a significantly higher score of 95.82 ± 1.31 points compared to the control group, which scored 87.70 ± 3.15 points (p < 0.001). The number of adverse events within one year after admission was notably lower in the observation group, with 8 cases, compared to 23 cases in the control group (p = 0.006). Additionally, nurses in the observation group achieved a higher patient satisfaction score compared to the control group (97.23 ± 1.78 vs. 92.19 ± 1.49 points, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The utilization of diverse cross-sectional assessment templates and instructional videos for typical diseases in the training of novice nurses in the neurology department enhanced nursing quality, improved clinical practical abilities, and improved patient safety.

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
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
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of polyglycolic acid-loading mitomycin nanoparticles in inhibiting the scar proliferation after glaucoma filtering surgery. Development and application of an uncapped mRNA platform. Overexpression of ST8Sia1 inhibits tumor progression by TGF-β1 signaling in rectal adenocarcinoma and promotes the tumoricidal effects of CD8+ T cells by granzyme B and perforin. Early combination of sotrovimab with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or remdesivir is associated with low rate of persisting SARS CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19: a prospective single-centre study. Prognostic indicators and outcome in patients with acute liver failure, sepsis and with and without shock: a retrospective cohort study.
×
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