A systematic review of reliable and valid tools for the measurement of patient participation in healthcare.

INTRODUCTION: Patient participation in healthcare is recognised internationally as essential for consumer-centric, high-quality healthcare delivery. Its measurement as part of continuous quality improvement requires development of agreed standards and measurable indicators. AIM: This systematic review sought to identify strategies to measure patient participation in healthcare and to report their reliability and validity. In the context of this review, patient participation was constructed as shared decision-making, acknowledging the patient as having critical knowledge regarding their own health and care needs and promoting self-care/autonomy. METHODS: Following a comprehensive search, studies reporting reliability or validity of an instrument used in a healthcare setting to measure patient participation, published in English between January 2004 and March 2014 were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: From an initial search, which identified 1582 studies, 156 studies were retrieved and screened against inclusion criteria. Thirty-three studies reporting 24 patient participation measurement tools met inclusion criteria, and were critically appraised. The majority of studies were descriptive psychometric studies using prospective, cross-sectional designs. Almost all the tools completed by patients, family caregivers, observers or more than one stakeholder focused on aspects of patient-professional communication. Few tools designed for completion by patients or family caregivers provided valid and reliable measures of patient participation. There was low correlation between many of the tools and other measures of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Few reliable and valid tools for measurement of patient participation in healthcare have been recently developed. Of those reported in this review, the dyadic Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (dyadic-OPTION) tool presents the most promise for measuring core components of patient participation. There remains a need for further study into valid, reliable and feasible strategies for measuring patient participation as part of continuous quality improvement.

Post-anaesthetic discharge scoring criteria: key findings from a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety depends on nurses' clinical judgment. In post-anaesthetic care, objective scoring systems are commonly used to help nurses assess when a patient is ready to go back to the ward or be discharged home after day surgery. Although there are several criteria used to assess patient readiness for discharge from the post-anaesthetic care unit, evaluation of the validity and reliability of these criteria is scarce. AIMS: This article presents key findings from a systematic review conducted to identify the essential components of an effective and feasible scoring system to assess patients following surgical anaesthesia for discharge from the post-anaesthetic care unit. METHODS: The protocol for the systematic review of quantitative studies investigating assessment criteria for discharge of adult patients from the post-anaesthetic care unit was approved by the Joanna Briggs Institute and conducted consistent with the methodology of the Institute. Twelve databases and grey literature, such as conference proceedings, were searched for published studies between 1970 and 2010. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility for inclusion. Reference lists of included studies were appraised. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria; only one was a randomised controlled trial. Variables identified as essential when assessing a patient's readiness for discharge from the post-anaesthetic care unit were conscious state, blood pressure, nausea and vomiting, and pain. Assessment of psychomotor and cognitive recovery and other vital signs were also identified as relevant variables to consider. CONCLUSIONS: There was limited high-quality research regarding criteria to assess patient readiness for discharge from the post-anaesthetic unit. The key recommendations, with moderate to high risk of bias, include that assessment of specific variables (pain, conscious state, blood pressure, and nausea and vomiting) should be made before patient discharge. These key findings have informed a subsequent study to reach international consensus on effective assessment criteria and a project to test the clinical reliability of a tool for use by nurses in assessing patient readiness for discharge from post-anaesthetic care.

Medication administration via enteral tubes: a survey of nurses' practices.

AIM: This article is a report of a study examining the practices of acute care nurses when administering medication via enteral tubes. BACKGROUND: Administering medication via enteral tubes is predominantly a nursing responsibility across countries. It is important to establish what nurses actually do when giving enteral medication to inform policy and continuing education development. METHOD: In 2007, a survey was conducted using a random sample of acute care nurses at two large metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. There were 181 Registered Nurses who participated in the study; 92 (50.8%) practised in intensive care units, 52 (28.7%) in surgical areas, 30 (16.6%) in medical areas and 7 (3.9%) were from combined medical-surgical areas. The questionnaire was developed by the researchers and a pilot study was conducted in August 2006 to test reliability, face validity and user-friendliness of the tool. RESULTS: Nurses reported using a range of methods to verify enteral tube position prior to administering enteral medication; some were unreliable methods. A majority reported administering enteric-coated and slow or extended release forms of medication, and giving solid forms of medication when liquid form was available. Nearly all (96%) reported flushing a tube after giving medication, 28% before, and 12% always flushed between each medication. CONCLUSION: Enteral medication administration practices are inconsistent. Some nurses are using unsafe practices and may therefore compromise patient care.