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

IF 4.3 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":4.3000,"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
利用不同的横截面评估模板对神经内科新护士进行典型疾病的指导。
目的:探讨不同典型疾病横断面评估模板在神经内科新护士教育中的应用。方法:选取2019年1月至12月在我中心工作10年以下的注册护士进行回顾性研究。分为观察组(18名护士)和对照组(17名护士)。对照组接受了各种典型疾病横断面评估的培训。比较分析两组患者的临床工作能力、护理质量、不良事件、患者满意度。结果:共有35名护士参与本研究。观察组护士工作能力得分为97.42±2.02分,较对照组(92.17±1.72分)有显著提高(p p p = 0.006)。观察组护士的患者满意度得分(97.23±1.78分)高于对照组(92.19±1.49分)。结论:在神经内科新护士培训中运用多样化的横断面评估模板和典型疾病教学视频,提高了护理质量,提高了临床实践能力,提高了患者的安全性。
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
Letter to the editor regarding: 'bidirectional association of daily steps with sarcopenia: a longitudinal study'. Global epidemiology of diabetes and prediabetes in lean or non-obese patients with NAFLD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Insulin-like growth factor-1/insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor signalling in macrophages facilitates recovery from acute lung injury. Optimizing immunotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: recent advances and future directions.
×
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:604180095
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