Competence in intensive and critical care nursing - development of a basic assessment scale for graduating nursing students

Intensive and critical care nursing is a speciality in its own right and with its own nature within the nursing profession. This speciality poses its own demands for nursing competencies. Intensive and critical care nursing is focused on severely ill patients and their significant others. The patients are comprehensively cared for, constantly monitored and their vital functions are sustained artificially. The main goal is to win time to cure the cause of the patient’s situation or illness. The purpose of this empirical study was i) to describe and define competence and competence requirements in intensive and critical care nursing, ii) to develop a basic measurement scale for competence assessment in intensive and critical care nursing for graduating nursing students, and iii) to describe and evaluate graduating nursing students’ basic competence in intensive and critical care nursing by seeking the reference basis of self-evaluated basic competence in intensive and critical care nursing from ICU nurses. However, the main focus of this study was on the outcomes of nursing education in this nursing speciality. The study was carried out in different phases: basic exploration of competence (phase 1 and 2), instrumentation of competence (phase 3) and evaluation of competence (phase 4). Phase 1 (n=130) evaluated graduating nursing students’ basic biological and physiological knowledge and skills for working in intensive and critical care with Basic Knowledge Assessment Tool version 5 (BKAT-5, Toth 2012). Phase 2 focused on defining competence in intensive and critical care nursing with the help of literature review (n=45 empirical studies) as well as competence requirements in intensive and critical care nursing with the help of experts (n=45 experts) in a Delphi study. In phase 3 the scale Intensive and Critical Care Nursing Competence Scale (ICCN-CS) was developed and tested twice (pilot test 1: n=18 students and n=12 nurses; pilot test 2: n=56 students and n=54 nurses). Finally, in phase 4, graduating nursing students’ competence was evaluated with ICCN-CS and BKAT version 7 (Toth 2012). In order to develop a valid assessment scale of competence for graduating nursing students and to evaluate and establish the competence of graduating nursing students, empirical data were retrieved at the same time from both graduating nursing students (n=139) and ICU nurses (n=431). Competence can be divided into clinical and general professional competence. It can be defined as a specific knowledge base, skill base, attitude and value base and experience base of nursing and the personal base of an intensive and critical care nurse. Personal base was excluded in this self-evaluation based scale. The ICCN-CS-1 consists of 144 items (6 sum variables). Finally, it became evident that the experience base of competence is not a suitable sum variable in holistic intensive and critical care competence scale for graduating nursing students because of their minor experience in this special nursing area. ICCN-CS-1 is a reliable and tolerably valid scale for use among graduating nursing students and ICU nurses Among students, basic competence of intensive and critical care nursing was self-rated as good by 69%, as excellent by 25% and as moderate by 6%. However, graduating nursing students’ basic biological and physiological knowledge and skills for working in intensive and critical care were poor. The students rated their clinical and professional competence as good, and their knowledge base and skill base as moderate. They gave slightly higher ratings for their knowledge base than skill base. Differences in basic competence emerged between graduating nursing students and ICU nurses. The students’ self-ratings of both their basic competence and clinical and professional competence were significantly lower than the nurses’ ratings. The students’ self-ratings of their knowledge and skill base were also statistically significantly lower than nurses’ ratings. However, both groups reported the same attitude and value base, which was excellent. The strongest factor explaining students’ conception of their competence was their experience of autonomy in nursing. Conclusions: Competence in intensive and critical care nursing is a multidimensional concept. Basic competence in intensive and critical care nursing can be measured with self-evaluation based scale but alongside should be used an objective evaluation method. Graduating nursing students’ basic competence in intensive and critical care nursing is good but their knowledge and skill base are moderate. Especially the biological and physiological knowledge base is poor. Therefore in future in intensive and critical care nursing education should be focused on both strengthening students’ biological and physiological knowledge base and on strengthening their overall skill base. Practical implications are presented for nursing education, practice and administration. In future, research should focus on education methods and contents, mentoring of clinical practice and orientation programmes as well as further development of the scale.

Coercion, Perceived Care and Quality of Life Among Patients in Psychiatric Hospitals

The goals of the study were to describe patients’ perceptions of care after experiencing seclusion/restraint and their quality of life. The goal was moreover to identify methodological challenges related to studies from the perspective of coerced patients. The study was conducted in three phases between September 2008 and April 2012. In the first phase, the instrument Secluded/ Restrained Patients’ Perception of their Treatment (SR-PPT) was developed and validated in Japan in cooperation with a Finnish research group (n = 56). Additional data were collected over one year from secluded/restrained patients using the instrument (n = 90). In the second phase, data were collected during the discharge process (n = 264). In the third phase, data were collected from electronic databases. Methodological and ethical issues were reviewed (n = 32) using systematic review method. Patients perceived that co-operation with the staff was poor; patients’ opinions were not taken into account, treatment targets collated and treatment methods were seen in different ways. Patients also felt that their concerns were not well enough understood. However, patients received getting nurses’ time. In particular, seclusion/restraint was considered unnecessary. The patients felt that they benefited from the isolation in treating their problems more than they needed it, even if the benefit was seen to be minor. Patients treated on forensic wards rated their treatment and care significantly lower than in general units. During hospitalization secluded/restrained patients evaluated their quality of life, however, better than did non-secluded/restrained patients. However, no conclusion is drawn to the effect that the better quality of life assessment is attributable to the seclusion/restraint because patients’ treatment period after the isolation was long and because of many other factors, as rehabilitation, medication, diagnostic differences, and adaptation. According to the systematic mixed studies review variation between study designs was found to be a methodological challenge. This makes comparison of the results more difficult. A research ethical weakness is conceded as regards descriptions of the ethical review process (44 %) and informed consent (32 %). It can be concluded that patients in psychiatric hospital care and having a voice as an equal expert require special attention to clinical nursing, decision-making and service planning. Patients and their family members will be consulted in plans of preventive and alternative methods for seclusion and restraint. The study supports the theory that in ethical decision-making situations account should be taken of medical indications, in addition to the patients’ preferences, the effect of treatment on quality of life, and this depends on other factors. The connection between treatment decisions and a patient’s quality of life should be evaluated more structurally in practice. Changing treatment culture towards patients’ involvement will support daily life in nursing and service planning taking into account improvements in patients’ quality of life.

Asleep or not asleep? Evaluation of the Quality of Patients’ Sleep in Critical Care Nursing

Sleep is important for the recovery of a critically ill patient, as lack of sleep is known to influence negatively a person’s cardiovascular system, mood, orientation, and metabolic and immune function and thus, it may prolong patients’ intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay. Intubated and mechanically ventilated patients suffer from fragmented and light sleep. However, it is not known well how non-intubated patients sleep. The evaluation of the patients’ sleep may be compromised by their fatigue and still position with no indication if they are asleep or not. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ICU patients’ sleep evaluation methods, the quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep, and the sleep evaluations performed by ICU nurses. The aims were to develop recommendations of patients’ sleep evaluation for ICU nurses and to provide a description of the quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep. The literature review of ICU patients’ sleep evaluation methods was extended to the end of 2014. The evaluation of the quality of patients’ sleep was conducted with four data: A) the nurses’ narrative documentations of the quality of patients’ sleep (n=114), B) the nurses’ sleep evaluations (n=21) with a structured observation instrument C) the patients’ self-evaluations (n=114) with the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, and D) polysomnographic evaluations of the quality of patients’ sleep (n=21). The correspondence of data A with data C (collected 4–8/2011), and data B with data D (collected 5–8/2009) were analysed. Content analysis was used for the nurses’ documentations and statistical analyses for all the other data. The quality of non-intubated patients’ sleep varied between individuals. In many patients, sleep was light, awakenings were frequent, and the amount of sleep was insufficient as compared to sleep in healthy people. However, some patients were able to sleep well. The patients evaluated the quality of their sleep on average neither high nor low. Sleep depth was evaluated to be the worst and the speed of falling asleep the best aspect of sleep, on a scale 0 (poor sleep) to 100 (good sleep). Nursing care was mostly performed while the patients were awake, and thus the disturbing effect was low. The instruments available for nurses to evaluate the quality of patients’ sleep were limited and measured mainly the quantity of sleep. Nurses’ structured observatory evaluations of the quality of patients’ sleep were correct for approximately two thirds of the cases, and only regarding total sleep time. Nurses’ narrative documentations of the patients’ sleep corresponded with patients’ self-evaluations in just over half of the cases. However, nurses documented several dimensions of sleep that are not included in the present sleep evaluation instruments. They could be classified according to the components of the nursing process: needs assessment, sleep assessment, intervention, and effect of intervention. Valid, more comprehensive sleep evaluation methods for nurses are needed to evaluate, document, improve and study patients’ quality of sleep.