Increasing a patient's sense of security in the hospital: A theory of trust and nursing action.

Having a decreased sense of security leads to unnecessary suffering and distress for patients. Establishing trust is critical for nurses to promote a patient's sense of security, consistent with trauma-informed care. Research regarding nursing action, trust, and sense of security is wide-ranging but fragmented. We used theory synthesis to organize the disparate existing knowledge into a testable middle-range theory encompassing these concepts in hospitals. The resulting model illustrates how individuals are admitted to the hospital with some predisposition to trust or mistrust the healthcare system and/or personnel. Patients encounter circumstances increasing their emotional and/or physical vulnerability to harm, leading to experiences of fear and anxiety. Without intervention, fear and anxiety lead to a decreased sense of security, increased distress, and suffering. Nurse action can ameliorate these effects by increasing a hospitalized person's sense of security or by promoting the development of interpersonal trust, also leading to an increased sense of security. Increased sense of security results in diminished anxiety and fear, and increased hopefulness, confidence, calm, sense of value, and sense of control. The consequences of a decreased sense of security are harmful to patients and nurses should know that they can intervene in ways that both increase interpersonal trust and sense of security.

Nurse Sensemaking for Responding to Patient and Family Safety Concerns.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals need to prevent, respond to, and learn from safety risks and events perceived by patients and families, who in turn rely on nurses to respond to and report their safety concerns. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to describe the process by which bedside nurses evaluate and determine the appropriate response to safety concerns expressed by patients or their families. METHODS: A qualitative design was employed. We recruited inpatient bedside nurses in an 811-bed Midwest academic medical center. Nurses provided demographic information and participated in semistructured interviews designed to elicit narratives related to evaluation and response to patient- or family-expressed safety concerns. Data analysis and interpretation were guided by grounded theory. RESULTS: We enrolled 25 nurses representing 22 units. Based on these nurses' experiences, we developed a grounded theory explaining how nurses evaluate a patient or family safety concern. Nurses make sense of the patient's or family's safety concern in order to take action. Achieving this goal requires evaluation of the meaningfulness and reasonableness of the concern, as well as the potential effect of the concern on the patient. Based on this nursing evaluation, nurses respond in ways designed to (a) manage emotions, (b) immediately resolve concerns, (c) involve other team members, and (d) address fear or uncertain grounding in reality. Nurses reported routinely handling safety concerns at the bedside without use of incident reporting. DISCUSSION: Safety requires an interpersonal and evaluative nursing process with actions responsive to patient and family concerns. Safety interventions designed to be used by nurses should be developed with the dynamic, cognitive, sensemaking nature of nurses' routine safety work in mind. Being sensitive to the vulnerability of patients, respecting patient and family input, and understanding the consequences of dismissing patient and family safety concerns are critical to making sense of the situation and taking appropriate action to maintain safety. Measuring patient safety or planning improvement based on patient or family expression of safety concerns would be a difficult undertaking using only standard approaches. A more complex approach incorporating direct patient engagement in data collection is necessary to gain a complete safety picture.

Nurse bias and nursing care disparities related to patient characteristics: A scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Investigations of healthcare workers' implicit attitudes about patient characteristics and differences in delivery of healthcare due to bias are increasingly common. However, there is a gap in our understanding of nurse-specific bias and care disparities. AIMS: To identify (a) the types of available evidence, (b) key factors and relationships identified in the evidence and (c) knowledge gaps related to nurse bias (nurse attitudes or beliefs towards a patient characteristic) and nursing care disparities (healthcare disparities related specifically to nursing care). METHODS: Authors completed a scoping review using the Joanne Briggs Institute method and PRISMA-SCR checklist. Five databases were searched. After screening, 215 research reports were included and examined. Data were extracted from research reports and assessed for thematic patterns and trends across multiple characteristics. RESULTS: Nurse bias and/or care disparity investigations have become increasingly common over the 38-year span of included reports. Multiple patient characteristics have been investigated, with the most common being race and/or ethnicity, gender and age. Twenty-nine of 215 studies identified a potential relationship between nurse bias regarding a characteristic and nursing care of individuals with that characteristic. Of these studies, 27 suggested the bias was associated with a negative disparate impact on nursing care. Only 12 reports included evaluating an intervention designed to reduce nurse bias or nursing care-related healthcare disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing research focus on individual bias and disparities in healthcare, the accumulated knowledge regarding nurses has not significantly advanced past a descriptive, exploratory level. Nor has there been a consistent focus on the role of nurses, who represent the largest component of the professional healthcare workforce. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: National and international codes of ethics for nurses require provision of care according to individual, unique patient need, disregarding bias and incorporating patient characteristics into their plan of care.

A grounded theory of creating space for open safety communication between hospitalized patients and nurses.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that fear of negative nurse response may prevent hospitalized patients from sharing safety concerns, adversely affecting patient safety. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to describe the process by which bedside nurses recognize and respond to safety concerns expressed by patients or their families. METHODS: Twenty-five bedside nurses from 30 maternal-child, intensive, medical-surgical, and psychiatric inpatient units within an academic medical center participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using grounded theory. FINDINGS: Nurses reported creating space for open safety communication to foster trust and maintain patient safety and sense of security. Nurses anticipated safety concerns, invited safety discussion, were accessible, recognized insecurity, reacted in a trustworthy way, shared a plan, and followed up with patient and family. DISCUSSION: This process involves multiple interacting components, yet was remarkably consistent across acute care settings, despite differences in nurses, patient populations, and unit cultures.

Priming patient safety: A middle-range theory of safety goal priming via safety culture communication.

The aim of this paper is discussion of a new middle-range theory of patient safety goal priming via safety culture communication. Bedside nurses are key to safe care, but there is little theory about how organizations can influence nursing behavior through safety culture to improve patient safety outcomes. We theorize patient safety goal priming via safety culture communication may support organizations in this endeavor. According to this theory, hospital safety culture communication activates a previously held patient safety goal and increases the perceived value of actions nurses can take to achieve that goal. Nurses subsequently prioritize and are motivated to perform tasks and risk assessment related to achieving patient safety. These efforts continue until nurses mitigate or ameliorate identified risks and hazards during the patient care encounter. Critically, this process requires nurses to have a previously held safety goal associated with a repertoire of appropriate actions. This theory suggests undergraduate educators should foster an outcomes focus emphasizing the connections between nursing interventions and safety outcomes, hospitals should strategically structure patient safety primes into communicative activities, and organizations should support professional development including new skills and the latest evidence supporting nursing practice for patient safety.

Nurse Managers' Professional Quality of Life During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Health systems cannot effectively support nurse managers without understanding psychosocial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the professional quality of life of frontline nursing management during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey of 54 nurses in management positions at a large Midwest academic medical center during 2022 was conducted. Participants completed an electronic survey including demographics, Professional Quality of Life Measure Version 5, and items assessing past consideration of and future intent to leave their position, organization, or profession. RESULTS: Most participants had previously considered changing roles (80%) or leaving the organization during the pandemic (76%). Fewer respondents reported that changing role (24%) or organization (20%) was likely during the upcoming 6-12 months. Most participants scored in moderate ranges of Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout, and Secondary Traumatic Stress scales (85%, 89%, and 74%, respectively). Higher Compassion Satisfaction was associated with extreme unlikelihood of leaving for an internal non-management role. Higher Burnout scores were associated with more time working and past consideration or future likelihood of leaving for an external non-nursing position. Secondary Traumatic Stress scores were higher for nurse managers and house operation managers than assistant nurse managers and associated with past consideration of moving to an internal non-management role or external non-nursing position and future likelihood of moving to an external non-nursing position. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse management occupies a demanding position between frontline staff needs and administrative requirements, profoundly impacted by COVID-19. Health care researchers, administration, and policymakers must learn how to support, retain, and sustain nursing management in a post-pandemic world.

Patient Voices in Hospital Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Hospitalized patients and their families may be reluctant to express safety concerns. We aimed to describe safety and quality concerns experienced by hospitalized patients and families and factors and outcomes surrounding decisions about voicing concerns, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 discharged inpatients or family members in a qualitative descriptive design. Some participants reported concern about staff competency or knowledge, communication and coordination, potential treatment errors, or care environment. Factors influencing feeling safe included healthcare team member characteristics, communication and coordination, and safe care expectations. Reasoning for voicing concerns often included personal characteristics. Reasons for not voicing concerns included feeling no action was needed or the concern was low priority. Outcomes for voicing a concern were categorized as resolved, disregarded, and unknown. These findings support the vital importance of open safety communication and trustworthy response to patients and family members who voice concerns.

Realistic Evaluation of a Rapid Response System: Context, Mechanisms, and Outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to describe and explore differences between rapid response system events in a Midwestern community hospital through context, mechanism, and outcome factors. The design was a retrospective review of 1,939 adult inpatient events that occurred on medical (62.8%) and surgical units (37.2%) over 92 months. The immediate outcomes of the events were stabilization (59.0%), transfer to a higher level of care (39%), and cardiopulmonary arrest (2%). Nurses activated 94% of all rapid response events; respiratory (38.8%) and cardiac (29.2%) symptoms were the most common triggers, and worry alone triggered 23% of all events. Medical and surgical events were significantly different with regard to antecedents to unit arrival, most common triggers, immediate clinical outcomes, and occurrence during resource-limited times. Understanding rapid response events and differences between medical and surgical units is important to improve early identification of deterioration and thus intervention for vulnerable patients.

Assessment of Rapid Response Teams at Top-Performing Hospitals for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

IMPORTANCE: Rapid response teams (RRTs) are foundational to hospital response to deteriorating conditions of patients. However, little is known about differences in RRT organization and function across top-performing and non-top-performing hospitals for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in design and implementation of RRTs at top-performing and non-top-performing sites for survival of IHCA, which is known to be associated with hospital performance on IHCA incidence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative analysis was performed of data from semistructured interviews of 158 hospital staff members (nurses, physicians, administrators, and staff) during site visits to 9 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation program and consistently ranked in the top, middle, and bottom quartiles for IHCA survival during 2012-2014. Site visits were conducted from April 19, 2016, to July 27, 2017. Data analysis was completed in January 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Semistructured in-depth interviews were performed and thematic analysis was conducted on strategies for IHCA prevention, including RRT roles and responsibilities. RESULTS: Of the 158 participants, 72 were nurses (45.6%), 27 physicians (17.1%), 27 clinical staff (17.1%), and 32 administrators (20.3%). Between 12 and 30 people at each hospital participated in interviews. Differences in RRTs at top-performing and non-top-performing sites were found in the following 4 domains: team design and composition, RRT engagement in surveillance of at-risk patients, empowerment of bedside nurses to activate the RRT, and collaboration with bedside nurses during and after a rapid response. At top-performing hospitals, RRTs were typically staffed with dedicated team members without competing clinical responsibilities, who provided expertise to bedside nurses in managing patients who were at risk for deterioration, and collaborated with nurses during and after a rapid response. Bedside nurses were empowered to activate RRTs based on their judgment and experience without fear of reprisal from physicians or hospital staff. In contrast, RRT members at non-top-performing hospitals had competing clinical responsibilities and were generally less engaged with bedside nurses. Nurses at non-top-performing hospitals reported concerns about potential consequences from activating the RRT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This qualitative study's findings suggest that top-performing hospitals feature RRTs with dedicated staff without competing clinical responsibilities, that work collaboratively with bedside nurses, and that can be activated without fear of reprisal. These findings provide unique insights into RRTs at hospitals with better IHCA outcomes.

Priming Patient Safety Through Nursing Handoff Communication: A Simulation Pilot Study.

Understanding how safety culture mechanisms affect nursing safety-oriented behavior and thus patient outcomes is critical to developing hospital safety programs. Safety priming refers to communicating safety values intended to activate patient safety goals. Safety priming through nursing handoff communication was tested as a means by which cultural safety values may affect nursing practice. The mixed-methods pilot study setting was an academic medical center's high-fidelity simulation lab. Twenty nurses were randomized into intervention and control groups. The intervention group received a safety priming intervention; all participants were observed for completing appropriate actions in response to patient safety risks embedded in a scenario. Stimulated recall interviews were conducted following simulation completion. Nurses receiving the safety priming intervention performed slightly but non-significantly more safety actions than nurses who did not (60.5% vs. 57.9% of 43 actions). Implications for both research and practice are discussed for interventions targeting routine versus safety goal-directed nursing actions.