ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Awareness and prompt recognition of sepsis are essential for nurses working in the emergency department (ED), enabling them to make an initial assessment of patients and then to sort them according to their condition s severity. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department by comparing the previous sepsis-2 screening tool, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and the current sepsis-3 screening tool, the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA). METHODS: This systematic review used the guideline by Bettany-Saltikov and McSherry and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Study selection and risk of bias was performed independently by pair of authors. RESULTS: Five articles were included. Overall, SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA, while qSOFA showed higher specificity than SIRS. The positive predictive value for qSOFA was superior, while there was a minor deviation in negative predictive value between qSOFA and SIRS. CONCLUSION: The overall recommendation based on the included studies indicates that qSOFA is the better-suited screening tool for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department.
Subject(s)
Organ Dysfunction Scores , Sepsis , Humans , Prognosis , Hospital Mortality , Sepsis/diagnosis , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis , Emergency Service, Hospital , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nursing education has increasingly focused on critical thinking among nursing students, as critical thinking is a desired outcome of nursing education. Particular attention is given to the potential of technological tools in guiding nursing students to stimulate the development of critical thinking; however, the general landscape, facilitators, and challenges of these guidance models remain unexplored, and no previous mixed methods systematic review on the subject has been identified. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize existing evidence on technology-supported guidance models used in nursing education to stimulate the development of critical thinking in nursing students in clinical practice. METHODS: This mixed methods systematic review adopted a convergent, integrated design to facilitate thematic synthesis. This study followed the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 3 analytical themes: learning processes implemented to stimulate critical thinking, organization of the learning process to stimulate critical thinking, and factors influencing the perception of the learning process. We also identified 4 guidance models, all based on facilitator or preceptorship models using tailored instructional or learning strategies and one or several technological tools that were either generic or custom-made for specific outcomes. The main facilitators of these technology-supported guidance models were nurse educators or nurse preceptors, and the main challenges in using technology-supported guidance models were the stress associated with technical difficulties or increased cognitive load. CONCLUSIONS: Although we were able to identify 4 technology-supported guidance models, our results indicate a research gap regarding the use of these models in nursing education, with the specific aim of stimulating the development of critical thinking. Both nurse preceptors and nurse educators play a crucial role in the development of critical thinking among nursing students, and technology is essential for such development. However, technology-supported guidance models should be supervised to mitigate the associated stress. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25126.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: The purpose of this secondary analysis was to explore how young cancer survivors and their parents experience and manage treatment-related late effects in daily life post-treatment. DESIGN: A phenomenological-hermeneutic explorative study. METHODS: Using purposive sampling, we included 15 childhood cancer survivors (aged 11-18 years) and their parents who participated in semi-structured interviews from September 2019 through May 2020. We analysed the interviews paired using a thematic approach focused on meaning. RESULTS: The central theme, 'Negotiation daily life', emerged as well as three interrelated sub-themes, that is 'A changed everyday life', 'Physical activity as a tool' and 'Friends as a tool'. The childhood cancer survivors and their parents experienced, understood and interpreted the late effects differently. The difference between the survivors' perceptions and those of their parents in managing treatment-related late effects in everyday life resulted in a continuous negotiation process between the parties. Parents highlighted the negative impact of late effects on their child's daily life in relation to physical activity, school and socialization while the survivors wished to leave the cancer experience behind and 'move on' with their friends. As a result, most of the survivors developed strategies to manage their social activities while their parents felt that the survivors neglected the late effects. CONCLUSION: The ongoing negotiation process between the childhood cancer survivors and their parents show the complexity of the new family dynamics on returning to everyday life post-treatment. For clinical nurses, that means that there should be focus on family dynamics and how the childhood cancer survivors and parents, respectively, manage the childhood cancer survivors' late effects. IMPACT: Healthcare providers should distinguish between the needs of the survivors and those of their parents as they transition from treatment to everyday life, and especially in the management of late effects caused by the treatment.
