The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses最新文献

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Most critical thinking assessment tools are resource intensive and require significant time and money to administer. Moreover, these tools are not tailored to evaluate critical thinking skills among inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) nurses. This pilot study explores the efficacy of using short videos to evaluate critical thinking for nurses working in an IRF. METHODS: We developed and filmed 3 clinical scenarios representative of common IRF events that require critical thinking on behalf of the nurse. Thirty-one IRF nurses participated in the study and independently scored their own critical thinking skills using a visual analog scale. Using the same scale, nurse managers and assistant managers who worked closely with the nurses also rated the critical thinking ability of each nurse. The nurse then viewed and responded in narrative form to each of the 3 videos. A scoring rubric was used to independently evaluate the critical thinking skills for each nurse based on the nurses' responses. RESULTS: Nurses rated their own critical thinking skills higher than mangers rated them (m = 85.23 vs 62.89). There was high interrater reliability for scoring video 1k (0.65), video 2k (0.90), and video 3k (0.84). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate efficacy for further study of low-cost alternatives to evaluate critical thinking among neuroscience nurses providing IRF care.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: To measure the effectiveness of an educational intervention, it is essential to develop high-quality, validated tools to assess a change in knowledge or skills after an intervention. An identified gap within the field of neurology is the lack of a universal test to examine knowledge of neurological assessment. METHODS: This instrument development study was designed to determine whether neuroscience knowledge as demonstrated in a Neurologic Assessment Test (NAT) was normally distributed across healthcare professionals who treat patients with neurologic illness. The variables of time, knowledge, accuracy, and confidence were individually explored and analyzed in SAS. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) time spent by 135 participants to complete the NAT was 12.9 (3.2) minutes. The mean knowledge score was 39.5 (18.2), mean accuracy was 46.0 (15.7), and mean confidence was 84.4 (24.4). Despite comparatively small standard deviations, Shapiro-Wilk scores indicate that the time spent, knowledge, accuracy, and confidence are nonnormally distributed ( P < .0001). The Cronbach α was 0.7816 considering all 3 measures (knowledge, accuracy, and confidence); this improved to an α of 0.8943 when only knowledge and accuracy were included in the model. The amount of time spent was positively associated with higher accuracy ( r2 = 0.04, P < .05), higher knowledge was positively associated with higher accuracy ( r2 = 0.6543, P < .0001), and higher knowledge was positively associated with higher confidence ( r2 = 0.4348, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The scores for knowledge, confidence, and accuracy each had a slightly skewed distribution around a point estimate with a standard deviation smaller than the mean. This suggests initial content validity in the NAT. There is adequate initial construct validity to support using the NAT as an outcome measure for projects that measure change in knowledge. Although improvements can be made, the NAT does have adequate construct and content validity for initial use.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The essential components of an effective neuroscience nurse orientation program for those caring for the adult general care population have not been well defined or standardized. METHODS : Using a 2-round, modified Delphi methodology, electronic surveys were distributed to 53 experts in neuroscience nursing orientation to gain consensus on the essential components of orientation for the neuroscience nurse. Survey data included demographics of the expert, literature-based components of neuroscience nurse orientation, and an opportunity to agree/disagree or write in additional components. RESULTS : Round 1 of the consensus survey elicited a response rate of 55% (29/53), and round 2 had a 51% (27/53) response rate. On the basis of round 1 expert responses, 4 new orientation components were added, and 36 components of a neuroscience nursing orientation were revised to include only the elements with ≥75% agreement. Twenty-two elements in round 2 met the criteria of ≥75% very important and important to include as components of a neuroscience nursing orientation. CONCLUSION : An expert consensus was reached on the necessary components of a neuroscience nursing orientation. The identified neuroscience nursing orientation components concentrated on improving nursing practice and provision of care to adult neuroscience patients. This study demonstrates priority components within a standardized orientation program for neuroscience nurses based on literature and expert consensus. A comprehensive neuroscience nursing orientation is a vital step in sustaining high-quality care for patients and improving neurological outcomes.