进行手术计数:一项观察性研究

Victoria Ruth Warwick Dr, B. Gillespie, A. McMurray, Karen G Clark-Burg Professor
{"title":"进行手术计数:一项观察性研究","authors":"Victoria Ruth Warwick Dr, B. Gillespie, A. McMurray, Karen G Clark-Burg Professor","doi":"10.26550/2209-1092.1089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To systematically measure and describe perioperative nurses’ surgical count practices using the Surgical Count Observational Tool, to measure conformity with standardised processes and identify barriers and enablers influencing nurses’ practices. The Surgical Count Observational Tool (SCOT) was developed using the Content Validity Index over two Delphi panel rounds and then pilot tested. Individual observations were analysed according to 14 criteria based on the 2016 Australian College of Perioperative Nurses (ACORN) standard ‘Management of accountable items used during surgery and procedures’ 1 . Count processes were observed over two consecutive weeks across six specialist perioperative teams including nurses, surgeons, anaesthetists and technicians to measure compliance with the ACORN standard. The SCOT and a field diary were then used in an observational study of 83 nursing staff, including 54 circulating nurses and 29 instrument nurses, over a period of 57 hours. Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse observational data. Of the 1268 count practices observed, 759 were compliant with the ACORN standard, representing a 60 per cent compliance rate. Consistency and compliance rates were lower than expected. Patient, case, environmental factors and expectations of surgeons and co-workers were observed to act as barriers to best practice in perioperative nurses undertaking a surgical count, while nurse’s knowledge was observed to act as an enabler.","PeriodicalId":37332,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perioperative Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Undertaking the surgical count: An observational study\",\"authors\":\"Victoria Ruth Warwick Dr, B. Gillespie, A. McMurray, Karen G Clark-Burg Professor\",\"doi\":\"10.26550/2209-1092.1089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective To systematically measure and describe perioperative nurses’ surgical count practices using the Surgical Count Observational Tool, to measure conformity with standardised processes and identify barriers and enablers influencing nurses’ practices. The Surgical Count Observational Tool (SCOT) was developed using the Content Validity Index over two Delphi panel rounds and then pilot tested. Individual observations were analysed according to 14 criteria based on the 2016 Australian College of Perioperative Nurses (ACORN) standard ‘Management of accountable items used during surgery and procedures’ 1 . Count processes were observed over two consecutive weeks across six specialist perioperative teams including nurses, surgeons, anaesthetists and technicians to measure compliance with the ACORN standard. The SCOT and a field diary were then used in an observational study of 83 nursing staff, including 54 circulating nurses and 29 instrument nurses, over a period of 57 hours. Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse observational data. Of the 1268 count practices observed, 759 were compliant with the ACORN standard, representing a 60 per cent compliance rate. Consistency and compliance rates were lower than expected. Patient, case, environmental factors and expectations of surgeons and co-workers were observed to act as barriers to best practice in perioperative nurses undertaking a surgical count, while nurse’s knowledge was observed to act as an enabler.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perioperative Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perioperative Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26550/2209-1092.1089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perioperative Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26550/2209-1092.1089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的使用手术计数观察工具系统地测量和描述围手术期护士的手术计数实践,以衡量是否符合标准化流程,并确定影响护士实践的障碍和促成因素。手术计数观察工具(SCOT)是使用内容有效性指数在两轮Delphi小组调查中开发的,然后进行了试点测试。根据2016年澳大利亚围手术期护士学院(ACORN)标准“手术和程序中使用的责任项目的管理”1,根据14项标准对个体观察结果进行分析。对包括护士、外科医生、麻醉师和技术人员在内的六个专业围手术期团队连续两周的计数过程进行了观察,以衡量是否符合ACORN标准。然后,在一项为期57小时的观察性研究中,使用SCOT和现场日记对83名护理人员进行了观察研究,其中包括54名流动护士和29名仪器护士。使用Cohen’s kappa计算询问机的可靠性。描述性统计用于分析观测数据。在观察到的1268种计数方法中,759种符合ACORN标准,合规率为60%。一致性和遵守率低于预期。观察到患者、病例、环境因素以及外科医生和同事的期望是围手术期护士进行手术计数的最佳实践的障碍,而护士的知识则是促成因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Undertaking the surgical count: An observational study
Objective To systematically measure and describe perioperative nurses’ surgical count practices using the Surgical Count Observational Tool, to measure conformity with standardised processes and identify barriers and enablers influencing nurses’ practices. The Surgical Count Observational Tool (SCOT) was developed using the Content Validity Index over two Delphi panel rounds and then pilot tested. Individual observations were analysed according to 14 criteria based on the 2016 Australian College of Perioperative Nurses (ACORN) standard ‘Management of accountable items used during surgery and procedures’ 1 . Count processes were observed over two consecutive weeks across six specialist perioperative teams including nurses, surgeons, anaesthetists and technicians to measure compliance with the ACORN standard. The SCOT and a field diary were then used in an observational study of 83 nursing staff, including 54 circulating nurses and 29 instrument nurses, over a period of 57 hours. Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse observational data. Of the 1268 count practices observed, 759 were compliant with the ACORN standard, representing a 60 per cent compliance rate. Consistency and compliance rates were lower than expected. Patient, case, environmental factors and expectations of surgeons and co-workers were observed to act as barriers to best practice in perioperative nurses undertaking a surgical count, while nurse’s knowledge was observed to act as an enabler.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Perioperative Nursing
Journal of Perioperative Nursing Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of fascia iliaca compartment block in adult fractured neck of femur patients: An integrative review Triggering change in perioperative pressure injury risk assessment: A project report Product stewardship in health care: The importance of minimising the environmental and health impacts of plastic products Advancing perioperative nursing education and surgical skills acquisition: A comprehensive approach Effectiveness of intra-operative gentamicin irrigation in reducing post-operative surgical site infections: A systematic review
×
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