Practice and associated factors of Glasgow Coma Scale assessment among nurses working in adult intensive care units of federally administered hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

IF 0.7 Q4 NURSING Nursing Practice Today Pub Date : 2022-08-09 DOI:10.18502/npt.v9i3.10227
Habtamu Andualem, T. Beyene, Wagari Tuli, Nigusie Walelgn, S. Habtegiorgis, Wodaje Gietaneh, Molla Yigzaw Birhanu
{"title":"Practice and associated factors of Glasgow Coma Scale assessment among nurses working in adult intensive care units of federally administered hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia","authors":"Habtamu Andualem, T. Beyene, Wagari Tuli, Nigusie Walelgn, S. Habtegiorgis, Wodaje Gietaneh, Molla Yigzaw Birhanu","doi":"10.18502/npt.v9i3.10227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background & Aim: The Glasgow Coma Scale is a helpful instrument for measuring patients’ level of consciousness with neurosurgical disorders. Literature showed a majority of nurses don’t believe the Glasgow Coma Scale assessment is their area of practice. This study aimed to examine the Glasgow Coma Scale assessment practice and associated factors among nurses working in adult intensive care units of federally administered hospitals \nMethods & Materials: : Institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on conventionally selected 126 nurses working in adult intensive care units. Six clinical scenarios were used to assess practice, and those who correctly answered at least four scenario questions out of 6 practical scenario questions for the Glasgow Coma Scale assessment were considered good practice. Data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The Chi-square test was applied to examine the variables affecting Glasgow Coma Scale practice. Furthermore, the proportions of categorical variables’ replies were contrasted among the various groups. \nResult: With a response rate of 96.03%, 121 nurses participated in the study. (53.7%) was males. In this study, the overall good Glasgow Coma Scale assessment practice of intensive care units nurses was 47.1%. Lack of training (77.7%), job overload (73.6%), and insufficient knowledge and skills (61.2 %) are barriers for nurses to assess Glasgow Coma Scale. \nConclusion: In this, only nearly half of the participants displayed good practice on the Glasgow Coma Scale. Sex and educational status were both found to be significant factors in nurses’ Glasgow Coma Scale assessment practice.","PeriodicalId":36883,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Practice Today","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Practice Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/npt.v9i3.10227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background & Aim: The Glasgow Coma Scale is a helpful instrument for measuring patients’ level of consciousness with neurosurgical disorders. Literature showed a majority of nurses don’t believe the Glasgow Coma Scale assessment is their area of practice. This study aimed to examine the Glasgow Coma Scale assessment practice and associated factors among nurses working in adult intensive care units of federally administered hospitals Methods & Materials: : Institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on conventionally selected 126 nurses working in adult intensive care units. Six clinical scenarios were used to assess practice, and those who correctly answered at least four scenario questions out of 6 practical scenario questions for the Glasgow Coma Scale assessment were considered good practice. Data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The Chi-square test was applied to examine the variables affecting Glasgow Coma Scale practice. Furthermore, the proportions of categorical variables’ replies were contrasted among the various groups. Result: With a response rate of 96.03%, 121 nurses participated in the study. (53.7%) was males. In this study, the overall good Glasgow Coma Scale assessment practice of intensive care units nurses was 47.1%. Lack of training (77.7%), job overload (73.6%), and insufficient knowledge and skills (61.2 %) are barriers for nurses to assess Glasgow Coma Scale. Conclusion: In this, only nearly half of the participants displayed good practice on the Glasgow Coma Scale. Sex and educational status were both found to be significant factors in nurses’ Glasgow Coma Scale assessment practice.
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
埃塞俄比亚亚的斯亚贝巴联邦管理医院成人重症监护室护士格拉斯哥昏迷量表评估的实践和相关因素
背景与目的:格拉斯哥昏迷量表是测量神经外科疾病患者意识水平的有用工具。文献显示,大多数护士不相信格拉斯哥昏迷量表评估是他们的执业领域。本研究旨在检验在联邦管理医院成人重症监护室工作的护士的格拉斯哥昏迷量表评估实践和相关因素方法与材料:对常规选择的126名在成人重症监护病房工作的护士进行了基于机构的横断面研究。使用六个临床场景来评估实践,在格拉斯哥昏迷量表评估的六个实际场景问题中,那些正确回答了至少四个场景问题的人被认为是良好的实践。数据是使用自我管理问卷收集的。卡方检验用于检验影响格拉斯哥昏迷量表实践的变量。此外,分类变量回答的比例在不同组之间进行了对比。结果:121名护士参与了本研究,有效率为96.03%。男性占53.7%。在这项研究中,重症监护室护士的格拉斯哥昏迷量表评估实践总体良好率为47.1%。缺乏培训(77.7%)、工作负荷过重(73.6%)以及知识和技能不足(61.2%)是护士评估格拉斯哥昏迷量的障碍。结论:在这项研究中,只有近一半的参与者在格拉斯哥昏迷量表上表现出良好的实践。性别和教育状况都是护士格拉斯哥昏迷量表评估实践中的重要因素。
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
Nursing Practice Today
Nursing Practice Today Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Functional capacity and its associated factors in older adults in the rural area in Brazil Predictors of prone position use in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units: A cross-sectional study Fear of COVID-19, stress, anxiety, depression, and insomnia among undergraduate nursing students in Oman The level of teamwork and associated factors in the selected hospitals from the nurses' perspective: A cross-sectional study A thematic analysis of professionalism from the perspective of nurse managers
×
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