International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing最新文献

Background

Hospital discharge is a ‘vulnerable stage’ in care. A delayed, inappropriate or poorly planned discharge increases hazards and costs, inhibiting recovery, and often leading to unplanned readmission. New discharge processes could boost practice, reduce the length of stay, and, consequently, reduce costs and improve patients' quality of life.

Aim

To identify technology based interventions that have been implemented to facilitate a safe and timely discharge procedure after elective surgery, and to describe implementation barriers and facilitators and patient satisfaction.

Method

This rapid review followed a restricted systematic review framework, searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov. for relevant studies published from 2015 to 2021 in English.

Results

Eleven studies were included. Most interventions were machine-learning-based, and only one study reported patient involvement. Effective leadership, team work and communication were stated as implementation facilitators. The main barriers to implementation were: lack of support from leaders, poor clinical documentation, resistance to change, and financial and logistical concerns. None of the studies evaluated patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

Findings highlight factors that support the implementation of technology based interventions aimed at a safe and timely discharge process following elective surgery. Nurses play an important role in the provision of information, and in the development and implementation of discharge processes.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is an underrecognized healthcare phenomenon that causes significant harm to the health of those affected. The lifetime estimated global prevalence of IPV is one in three for women and one in twelve for men. Orthopaedic fracture clinics care for patients affected by IPV and, in fact, orthopaedic patients themselves believe they should be screened for IPV. Almost three percent of women seen for an acute musculoskeletal injury is a direct consequence of IPV. A major concern is that, in the absence of screening and no outward signs of IPV, healthcare providers do not screen patients. Current screening practices and policies are influenced by the nurses’ practice or the organizational structure in which nurses work. The purpose of this article is to raise awareness of IPV in the orthopaedic patient population and to provide a review on IPV for orthopaedic nurses.

It is important for organizational leaders to recognize the relationship between the barriers and facilitators in relation to IPV intervention. Facilitators and barriers to addressing IPV are discussed. In addition, the need to implement change in practice combined with empowering nurses to address IPV is described. Empowering orthopaedic nurses necessarily involves the provision of appropriate resources, information, and support to overcome barriers. The authors discuss unit policies, guidelines, and resources to address IPV.

Study design

Case-control survey.

Objectives

To explore intrapersonal factors associated with decision of patients with degenerative back pain for surgery.

Methods

From September 2018 to May 2019 patients were invited to complete a questionnaire. Patients who decided on (case) and declined surgery (control) were later confirmed from medical records.

Results

Seventy-five patients were recruited. Male patients (75.0%, p = 0.019), those who were married (78.7%, p = 0.0045), and had spousal care-givers (89.2%, p < 0.0001) were more likely to decide for surgery. All patients who decided on surgery expressed need for information on “the severity of their spine conditions” (p = 0.039). Those who decided on surgery did not have as the high expectation on “to sleep more comfortably” as those who declined (4.71 vs. 4.91, p = 0.022). The predictive factors for surgery decision by logistic regression analysis were: male gender (OR = 3.23, 95% CI: 1.19–8.77, p = 0.021); married (OR = 5.231, 95% CI: 1.87–14.61, p = 0.002); with available spousal care-giver (OR = 1.85, 95% CI: 0.198–3.89, p = 0.031); and those who preferred to treat/cure the spine disorder by pharmacological treatment (OR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.02–7.50, p = 0.045).

Conclusion

Patients who decided on surgery were likely to indicate need of medical information related to their condition. Patients were in hope of better relief of physical symptoms, especially related to sleep comfort. Patients would escalate their treatment from conservative to surgery when conservative treatments were no longer effective.

Introduction

After discovering a low incidence of delirium for hip fracture patients at our institution, we evaluated if this was due to underreporting and, if so, where process errors occurred.

Methods

Hip fracture patients aged ≥60 with a diagnosis of delirium were identified. Chart-Based Delirium Identification Instrument (CHART-DEL) identified missed diagnoses of delirium. Process maps were created based off staff interviews and observations.

Results

The incidence of delirium was 15.3% (N = 176). Within a random sample (n = 98), 15 patients (15.5%) were diagnosed, while 20 (24.7%) went undiagnosed despite evidence of delirium. Including missed diagnoses, delirium prevalence was higher in the sample compared to all patients (35.7% vs 15.3%, p < 0.001). Most missed diagnoses were due to failure in identifying delirium (60%) or failure in documenting/coding diagnosis (20%). The prevalence of baseline cognitive impairment was higher in undiagnosed delirium patients versus correctly diagnosed patients (80% vs 20%, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Our institution significantly underreports delirium among hip fracture patients mainly due to; (1) failure to identify delirium by the clinical staff, and (2) failure to document/code diagnosis despite correct identification. Baseline cognitive impairment can render delirium diagnosis challenging. These serve as targets for quality improvement and hip fracture care enhancement.

Background

Cervical collars are used as standard care for neck immobilisation after cervical spine injury. Although evidence for the most effective type of collar is lacking, there is evidence regarding adverse patient outcomes when managed in a semi or rigid collar. In response to the evidence of complications and adverse effects when using a hard collar, a large Australian adult trauma hospital that specializes in spinal care, changed its policy from hard to soft collars when managing acute cervical spine injury.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ experiences and outcomes when wearing a soft collar for acute cervical spine injury management in hospital.

Method

A single centre mixed method sequential study design was used.

Results

Medical records from 136 patients were examined and no adverse events resulting from collar use were recorded. Interviews with 20 patients revealed that they understood the value of wearing a soft collar. The soft collars were considered supportive and well tolerated, with good adherence to recommendations for use.

Conclusions

Understanding the patients’ experiences informs better care management. This study suggests that soft collars are well tolerated, do not result in pressure injuries or other adverse events and are suitable for managing acute cervical spine injury.

Introduction

To compare postoperative pain and discomfort between supine and lateral positions after lumbar surgery, a prospective randomized controlled study was performed.

Methods

Forty-three patients with lumbar degenerative disease, treated by decompression (n = 23) or fusion surgery (n = 20), were randomly assigned to be placed in either the supine (supine group: n = 21) or lateral (lateral group: n = 22) position postoperatively, and asked to maintain their position until a day after the surgery. Postoperative back pain and discomfort (visual analog scale [VAS], 0–100 mm) and the number of patients who could maintain their position were examined.

Results

The VAS scores for back pain (supine: 64.9 ± 22.0, lateral: 55.7 ± 21.4) showed no significant difference between the positions. However, the supine group showed significantly more severe discomfort (75.6 ± 15.7) than the lateral group (64.9 ± 15.7, p = 0.039). Significantly fewer patients maintained their position in the supine group (28.2%) than in the lateral group (68.2%; p = 0.022). Among patients who underwent fusion surgery, significantly fewer patients maintained their position in the supine group (10.0%) than those in the lateral group (60.0%, p = 0.029).

Conclusion

Postoperative discomfort was significantly reduced in the lateral position than in the supine position; thus, the lateral position is more suitable after lumbar surgery in terms of postoperative discomfort.