在护士中改进Braden量表的亚量表特定干预措施的使用。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 NURSING Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-02 DOI:10.3928/00220124-20231030-04
Lindsey Stevens, Jianfang Liu, Natalie Voigt
{"title":"在护士中改进Braden量表的亚量表特定干预措施的使用。","authors":"Lindsey Stevens, Jianfang Liu, Natalie Voigt","doi":"10.3928/00220124-20231030-04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pressure injuries (PIs) are costly to hospitals and have a negative impact on patient outcomes. Despite the use of validated tools that describe PI risk, such as the Braden Scale, the incidence of PIs remains high. Studies have shown that Braden Scale subscale scores should be considered when planning care; however, there is a discrepancy between understanding the importance of subscale-specific interventions and implementation. The goal of this study was to test the ability of an educational intervention tailored to specific interventions based on the subscales of the Braden Scale to improve knowledge among nurses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study was a prospective, quasi-experimental, single-group design where nurses (<i>n</i> = 35) from a neurosurgery stepdown unit in a large teaching hospital completed a preintervention survey (T1), attended an educational presentation, and then completed an immediate postintervention survey (T2) and a 2-month postintervention survey (T3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data analysis compared presurvey scores with postsurvey scores. Nursing comprehension improved from the preintervention survey (T1, <i>M</i> = 5.57) to the postintervention surveys (T2, <i>M</i> = 6.34; T3, <i>M</i> = 6.42) (<i>p</i> = .031).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nurses showed increased comprehension after the educational intervention from T1 to T3. <b>[<i>J Contin Educ Nurs.</i> 2024;55(1):42-48.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":49295,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing","volume":" ","pages":"42-48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the Use of Subscale-Specific Interventions of the Braden Scale Among Nurses.\",\"authors\":\"Lindsey Stevens, Jianfang Liu, Natalie Voigt\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/00220124-20231030-04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pressure injuries (PIs) are costly to hospitals and have a negative impact on patient outcomes. Despite the use of validated tools that describe PI risk, such as the Braden Scale, the incidence of PIs remains high. Studies have shown that Braden Scale subscale scores should be considered when planning care; however, there is a discrepancy between understanding the importance of subscale-specific interventions and implementation. The goal of this study was to test the ability of an educational intervention tailored to specific interventions based on the subscales of the Braden Scale to improve knowledge among nurses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study was a prospective, quasi-experimental, single-group design where nurses (<i>n</i> = 35) from a neurosurgery stepdown unit in a large teaching hospital completed a preintervention survey (T1), attended an educational presentation, and then completed an immediate postintervention survey (T2) and a 2-month postintervention survey (T3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data analysis compared presurvey scores with postsurvey scores. Nursing comprehension improved from the preintervention survey (T1, <i>M</i> = 5.57) to the postintervention surveys (T2, <i>M</i> = 6.34; T3, <i>M</i> = 6.42) (<i>p</i> = .031).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nurses showed increased comprehension after the educational intervention from T1 to T3. <b>[<i>J Contin Educ Nurs.</i> 2024;55(1):42-48.]</b>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"42-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20231030-04\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20231030-04","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:压力损伤(PI)对医院来说代价高昂,并对患者的预后产生负面影响。尽管使用了经验证的描述PI风险的工具,如Braden量表,但PI的发生率仍然很高。研究表明,在计划护理时应考虑布莱登量表分量表得分;然而,在理解分量表特定干预措施的重要性和实施之间存在差异。本研究的目的是测试根据布莱登量表的分量表为特定干预措施量身定制的教育干预措施提高护士知识的能力。方法:本研究是一项前瞻性、准实验性的单组设计,来自一家大型教学医院神经外科降压室的护士(n=35)完成了干预前调查(T1),参加了教育演示,然后完成了干预后立即调查(T2)和干预后两个月调查(T3)。结果:数据分析比较了调查前和调查后的得分。从干预前调查(T1,M=5.57)到干预后调查(T2,M=6.34;T3,M=6.42),护理理解能力有所提高(p=0.031)。[J Contin Educ Nurs.202x;5x(x):xx xx.]。
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
Improving the Use of Subscale-Specific Interventions of the Braden Scale Among Nurses.

Background: Pressure injuries (PIs) are costly to hospitals and have a negative impact on patient outcomes. Despite the use of validated tools that describe PI risk, such as the Braden Scale, the incidence of PIs remains high. Studies have shown that Braden Scale subscale scores should be considered when planning care; however, there is a discrepancy between understanding the importance of subscale-specific interventions and implementation. The goal of this study was to test the ability of an educational intervention tailored to specific interventions based on the subscales of the Braden Scale to improve knowledge among nurses.

Method: This study was a prospective, quasi-experimental, single-group design where nurses (n = 35) from a neurosurgery stepdown unit in a large teaching hospital completed a preintervention survey (T1), attended an educational presentation, and then completed an immediate postintervention survey (T2) and a 2-month postintervention survey (T3).

Results: Data analysis compared presurvey scores with postsurvey scores. Nursing comprehension improved from the preintervention survey (T1, M = 5.57) to the postintervention surveys (T2, M = 6.34; T3, M = 6.42) (p = .031).

Conclusion: Nurses showed increased comprehension after the educational intervention from T1 to T3. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2024;55(1):42-48.].

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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
107
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing is a monthly peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles on continuing nursing education that are directed toward continuing education and staff development professionals, nurse administrators, and nurse educators in all health care settings, for over 50 years.
期刊最新文献
Acceptance of Digital Health Care Technology and the Role of Nursing Education. It's All About Empowerment and Confidence: Experience of Newly Registered Nurses in an Intensive Clinical Training Course. Transition to Professional Practice in the United States: Exploring the Experiences of Internationally Educated Nurses. Improving the Recognition and Assessment of ICU Delirium. Using Performance Improvement Methods to Evaluate Processes for Writing Multiple-Choice Test Questions in the Postlicensure Clinical Environment: A Case Study.
×
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