Practitioner based quality improvement: a review of the Royal College of Nursing's dynamic standard setting system. (1/38)

OBJECTIVE: To explore and describe the implementation of the Royal College of Nursing's approach to audit--the dynamic standard setting system--within the current context of health care, in particular to focus on how the system has developed since its inception in the 1980s as a method for uniprofessional and multiprofessional audit. DESIGN: Qualitative design with semistructure interviews and field visits. SETTING: 28 sites throughout the United Kingdom that use the dynamic standard setting system. SUBJECTS: Quality and audit coordinators with a responsibility for implementing the system; clinical staff who practice the system. MAIN MEASURES: Experiences of the dynamic standard setting system, including reasons for selection, methods of implementation, and observed outcomes. RESULTS: Issues relating to four themes emerged from the data: practical experiences of the system as a method for improving patient care; issues of facilitation and training; strategic issues of implementation; and the use of the system as a method for multiprofessional audit. The development of clinical practice was described as a major benefit of the system and evidence of improved patient care was apparent. However, difficulties were experienced in motivating staff and finding time for audit, which in part related to the current format of the system and the level of training and support available for clinical staff. Diverse experiences were reported in the extent to which the system had been integrated at a strategic level of quality improvement and its successful application to multiprofessional clinical audit. CONCLUSIONS: The Royal College of Nursing's dynamic standard setting system can successfully be used as a method for clinical audit at both a uniprofessional and multiprofessional level. However, to capitalise on the strengths of the system, several issues need to be considered further. These include modifications to the system itself, as well as a more strategic focus on resources and support for audit, better integration of quality initiatives in health care, and a continuing focus on ways to achieve true multiprofessional collaboration and involvement of patients in clinical audit.  (+info)

ONS 2002 environmental scan: a basis for strategic planning. (2/38)

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To analyze information about the environments in which the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) operates as a basis for strategic planning. DATA SOURCES: Published reports and ONS internal surveys. DATA SYNTHESIS: Analysis of internal and external trends resulted in a list of implications with regard to managing change, avoiding mistakes, and identifying critical issues for ONS leadership. The team presented ONS leaders with a tool that helped to guide the development of the 2003-2006 Strategic Plan. CONCLUSIONS: The continuing vitality of professional nursing societies such as ONS is critical to the vitality of the profession of nursing itself. Monitoring the environment in which these organizations operate--and effectively using the knowledge that is gained--contributes to their long-term viability and growth. A stronger ONS is in a position to better serve its members, who ensure high-quality care to people with cancer.  (+info)

Nurse-physician collaboration: solving the nursing shortage crisis. (3/38)

The current severe nursing shortage in the United States has many causes and its solution requires new strategies. Collaboration among the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) has provided a model for the multidisciplinary approach needed. Nurse-physician collaboration is an important strategy to address the ongoing shortage.  (+info)

Development of a measure to delineate the clinical trials nursing role. (4/38)

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To identify the significant dimensions of the clinical trials nursing role and to construct a reliable and valid survey instrument to reflect these dimensions. DESIGN: Methodologic survey. SETTING/SAMPLE: The judge panel consisted of six national nurse experts. The focus group sample was comprised of 24 clinical research nurses from the West, Northeast, and Great Lakes regions of the United States and five research nurses from Canada. The sample for instrument testing consisted of 40 oncology clinical research nurses from the Southeast. METHODS: Several strategies were used to develop the Clinical Trials Nursing Questionnaire (CTNQ): literature review, conceptualization of the subscales, development of items for each subscale, development of the tool, expert judge panel evaluation, focus group testing, administration of the tool, and psychometric analysis of the results. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Frequency and importance of clinical trials nursing activities. FINDINGS: Content validity was established at 0.95. The alpha reliability coefficient was 0.92 for the frequency scale and 0.95 for the importance scale. A two-week test-retest reliability of 0.88 was obtained for the frequency scale and 0.92 for the importance scale. The final CTNQ contained 12 sections with 154 items. CONCLUSIONS: The CTNQ has acceptable content validity, internal consistency, and stability reliability. This instrument is promising for the assessment of the research nurse role, and its use in further research is appropriate. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: A valid and reliable measure can be used to delineate the subspecialty of clinical trials nursing, thus providing a better understanding of how nursing professionals contribute to the cancer research enterprise.  (+info)

Patient safety culture and leadership within Canada's Academic Health Science Centres: towards the development of a collaborative position paper. (5/38)

Currently, the Academy of Canadian Executive Nurses (ACEN) is working with the Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations (ACAHO) to develop a joint position paper on patient safety cultures and leadership within Academic Health Science Centres (AHSCs). Pressures to improve patient safety within our healthcare system are gaining momentum daily. Because AHSCs in Canada are the key organizations that are positioned regionally and nationally, where service delivery is the platform for the education of future healthcare providers, and where the development of new knowledge and innovation through research occurs, leadership for patient safety logically must emanate from them. As a primer, ACEN provides an overview of current patient safety initiatives in AHSCs to date. In addition, the following six key areas for action are identified to ensure that AHSCs continue to be leaders in delivering quality, safe healthcare in Canada. These include: (1) strategic orientation to safety culture and quality improvement, (2) open and transparent disclosure policies, (3) health human resources integral to ensuring patient safety practices, (4) effective linkages between AHSCs and academic institutions, (5) national patient safety accountability initiatives and (6) collaborative team practice.  (+info)

Oncology Nursing Society year 2004 research priorities survey. (6/38)

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) research priorities for 2005-2008 for oncology nursing across the entire scope of cancer care, including prevention, detection, treatment, survivorship, and palliative care. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE: Stratified into two groups: random sample of general membership (N = 2,205; responses = 287, or 13%) and all ONS active members in the United States with doctoral degrees (N = 627, responses = 144, or 23%); overall response rate was 15%. METHODS: The 2000 survey was revised and updated. Postcards were mailed to the original sample (N = 1,605) prior to the launch of the online survey, inviting participation via an online or paper-and-pencil survey. An e-mail announcement of the survey was launched one week later, followed by reminders the following week. Because of low response rates, a second sample (N = 600) was selected and contacted. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: 117 topic questions divided into seven categories. Several items were new or reworded. FINDINGS: The top 20 research priorities included 12 of the top 20 items found in the 2000 survey; 8 topics were new to the top 20. Priority topics were distributed across six of seven categories. When general membership results were compared to the doctoral sample, 10 topics were among the top 20 for both groups. Nine topics were top priorities in the 2000 (researcher) and 2004 (doctorally prepared) surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates to the electronic survey were lower than for previous paper-and-pencil surveys, but an adequate response was obtained. Rank order of mean importance ratings was determined by narrow differences in scores. The general membership and doctorally prepared samples showed similarities as well as differences in results. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The 2004 survey results will inform the 2005 research agenda and assist the ONS Foundation and other funding organizations in distributing research funds.  (+info)

A model for empowerment of nursing in Iran. (7/38)

BACKGROUND: While the Iranian nursing profession tries to reach to its full capacity for participating in the maintenance of public health, its desire to develop is strongly influenced by cultural, economic, and religious factors. The concept of empowerment is frequently used in nursing and the health services, particularly in relation to the quality of care, since the mission of nursing is to provide safe and quality nursing care thereby enabling patients to achieve their maximum level of wellness. When considering the importance of nursing services in any health system, the 54th World Health Assembly recommended that programs be designed to strengthen and promote the nursing profession. Since empowerment is crucial to the role of nurses, a qualitative study was conducted and aimed at designing a model for empowering nurses in Iran. METHODS: A grounded theory approach was used for analyzing the participants' experiences, their perceptions and the strategies affecting empowerment. Data collection was done through Semi-structured interviews and participant observation. Forty-four participants were interviewed and 12 sessions of observation were carried out. RESULTS: Three main categories emerged from the data collected; these are "personal empowerment", "collective empowerment", and "the culture and structure of the organization." From the participants' perspective, empowerment is a dynamic process that results from mutual interaction between personal and collective traits of nurses as well as the culture and the structure of the organization. Impediments, such as power dynamics within the health care system hinder nurses from demonstrating that they possess the essential ingredients of empowerment. CONCLUSION: A model was designed for empowering the nursing profession in Iran. Implementing this model will not only define nursing roles, identify territories in the national healthcare system, but it will restructure nursing systems, sub-systems, and services. Currently no such model exists; therefore, restructuring of the nursing system, including its services, education and research subsystems is recommended.  (+info)

Mentoring, clinical supervision and preceptoring: clarifying the conceptual definitions for Australian rural nurses. A review of the literature. (8/38)

In Australia, mentoring is beginning to emerge on the rural and remote nursing landscape as a strategy to improve the recruitment and retention of nurses. However, the terminology used to discuss this and other supportive relationships in nursing is often unclear and can be confusing. The main aim of this article is to locate mentoring, clinical supervision and preceptoring in the nursing literature, and thus provide a guide for Australian rural nurse clinicians, managers and policy-makers in general. It is through better understanding of the possibilities of each type of relationship that they can be factored into the development of supportive work settings, and that will encourage the retention of existing staff and possibly the recruitment of new staff. Each type of supportive relationship discussed in the literature has a different focus. Mentoring is broadly based and concentrates on developing areas such as career progression, scholarly achievements and personal development. Clinical supervision focuses on progressing clinical practice through reflection and the provision of professional guidance and support. Preceptorship focuses on clinical skill acquisition and socialisation. Each support relationship also differs in context and intensity. Mentoring relationships are based around developing reciprocity and accountability between each partner. They are normally conducted outside the work environment and in the participants' own time. Clinical supervisory relationships are similar to mentoring in that they are reliant on developing a strong sense of reciprocity and accountability, and take place over a long period of time. They differ, though, in that they are conducted during working hours, although preferably away from the work setting. They are also commonly facilitated through the use of small groups. Preceptoring relationships are short term, exist in the clinical context and concentrate on clinical skill acquisition and assessment.  (+info)