Students' Perspectives on Learning Practical Nursing Skills: A Focus Group Study in Norway.

Practical nursing skills are complex and involve technical, theoretical, and practical aspects, caring perspectives adjusted to both patient and circumstances, as well as ethical and moral considerations. Patients' length of stay in hospitals is decreasing, and more advanced patient treatment is conducted in primary healthcare settings. Hence, education and nursing skills need adjustment in line with the rapidly evolving field of practice. Studies emphasize a need to uncover whether the technical aspect of nursing skills, in general, is challenging in students' learning. The aim of this study was to explore students' perspectives on practical nursing skills and how they can best learn these. Three focus group interviews were conducted with registered nurse students and intellectual disability nurse students in their last semester (n = 11). Conventional, inductive content analysis in line with recommendations from Hsieh and Shannon was used to analyze the data. Two main categories with subcategories were identified: (1) the content of practical skills, with subcategories (a) human-to-human relations, (b) organizational competence, and (c) technical mastering and (2) building competence, with subcategories (a) need for supervision, (b) planning the learning situations, and (c) relevance for practice. Students experienced that practical skills did not only include technical aspects but also the ability to establish a relationship to the patient and to organize their working day. Supervising was assumed as essential both when training in the simulation center and in clinical placement, as well as planning of the training, respectively. Students experienced that some skills learned in the university college were less relevant in clinical practice and that certain skills were difficult to perform in practice due to the type of clinical placement. Hence, there is a need to review the approach to and content of practical nursing skills' learning in healthcare undergraduate programs, to prepare students for clinical practice, and to ensure that they build the competence needed in healthcare services.

Comparison in a laboratory model between the performance of a urinary closed system bag with double non-return valve and that of a single valve system.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection is the most common nosocomial infection in clinical settings. For bacteria ascending to the bladder the most common route is the extraluminal, but the intraluminal route also plays a role. For this reason, we compared two urinary closed system bags (CSB), one with a double and the other with a single non-return valve (NRV), in a laboratory setting in order to establish their ability to prevent or delay the ascent of bacteria from the drainage bag to the bladder. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The tests were performed in two microbiological laboratories (Copenhagen (C), Denmark and Freiburg (F), Germany). These were blinded to each other. A urinary tract model using artificial urine was set up. Two sets of ten drainage bags each with a double NRV (CSB A), and two sets of ten drainage bags each with a single NRV (CSB B) were inoculated with Escherichia coli (F: ATCC 25922; C: clinical strain). Daily samples were taken from two drainage ports on each system - one above the NRV (Port I), the other above the top of the artificial bladder (Port II). Time till E. coli was detected at the drainage ports (time to positivity) was measured. Colonization of the 'bladder' was defined as time to positivity at Port II. RESULTS: No significant differences in time to positivity at Port I (median 9.0, range: 6-12 for CSB B vs median 9.5 days, range: 6-13 for CSB A) were observed between the two systems. However, substantial differences were seen between the two systems in time to positivity at Port II: Port II on the bladder model using CSB B became positive after a median of 14.0 days (range: 10-22), whereas Port II of the model using CSB A only became positive after 21.5 days (range: 13-24). This amounts to a highly significant difference of 7.5 days (p = 0.0001) in the mean. CONCLUSION: Under laboratory conditions, colonization of the 'bladder' was significantly delayed when the CSB with a double NRV was used in comparison to the results obtained from the single NRV-system. Clinical trials should be conducted to investigate whether the urinary CSB with the double NRV has the ability to prevent (or to delay the onset of) catheter-associated urinary tract infection.