O Cuidador de Enfermagem e o Cuidar em Uma Unidade de Terapia Intensiva; The Nursing Caregiver and the Caring in Intensive Care Units

There are several aggressive factors in Intensive Care Units (ICU), which reach not only patients, but the nursing caregivers, since they participate in complex procedures and death of patients. Nursing caregivers may have difficulties on their daily work routine that can influence the way of care. The goal of this study was to identify the aspects of nursing caregivers working in adult ICU. It is a describe-exploratory study with qualitative approach, developed among 21 ICU adult nursing caregivers of a school hospital in Paraná. The data were collected in May and July, 2009 by recorded and transcribed semi-structured interviews. Four categories for analysis were identified: the aspects of ICU assistance, the meaning of healthcare for the nursing caregivers, the understanding of healthcare positive aspects and disclosing the difficulties of caring. The results revealed that caring is related to some factors such as mixed feelings, the mental and physical damage caused by stress; the understanding of total caring, scientific-technique procedures, family engagement in the assistance and humanization. The positive aspects are related to the welfare due to satisfaction in the work done and recognition of work. The difficulties involved death situations, psychological and biological damages, establishing links with patients and the uncaring toward the nursing caregivers.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)