Self-reported conflict management competence among nursing students on the point of graduating and registered nurses with professional experience

Objective: It has been shown that specific competence is necessary for preventing and managing conflicts in healthcare settings. The aim of this descriptive and correlation study was to investigate and compare the self-reported conflict management competence (CMC) of nursing students who were on the point of graduating (NSPGs), and the CMC of registered nurses (RNs) with professional experience. Methods: The data collection, which consisted of soliciting answers to items measuring CMC in the Nurse Professional Competence (NPC) Scale, was performed as a purposive selection of 11 higher education institutions (HEIs) in Sweden. Three CMC items from the NPC Scale were answered by a total of 569 nursing students who were on the point of graduating and 227 RN registered nurses with professional experience. Results: No significant differences between NSPGs and RNs were found, and both groups showed a similar score pattern, with the lowest score for the item: “How do you perceive your ability to develop the group and strengthen competence in conflict management and problem-solving, based on knowledge of group dynamics?”. RNs with long professional experience (>24 months) rated their overall CMC as significantly better than RNs with short (<24 months) professional experience did (p = .05). NSPGs who had experience of international studies during their nursing education reported higher CMC, compared with those who did not have this experience (p = .03). RNs who reported a high degree of utilisation of CMC during the previous month scored higher regarding self-reported overall CMC (p < .0001). Conclusions: Experience of international studies during nursing education, or long professional experience, resulted in higher self-reported CMC. Hence, the CMC items in the NPC Scale can be suitable for identifying self-reported conflict management competence among NSPGs and RNs

Techno-economic analysis of three HVAC retrofitting options

Accounting for around 40% of the total final energy consumption, the building stock is an important area of focus on the way to reaching the energy goals set for the European Union. The relatively small share of new buildings makes renovation of existing buildings possibly the most feasible way of improving the overall energy performance of the building stock. This of course involves improvements on the climate shell, for example by additional insulation or change of window glazing, but also installation of new heating systems, to increase the energy efficiency and to fit the new heat load after renovation. In the choice of systems for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), it is important to consider their performance for space heating as well as for domestic hot water (DHW), especially for a renovated house where the DHW share of the total heating consumption is larger. The present study treats the retrofitting of a generic single family house, which was defined as a reference building in a European energy renovation project. Three HVAC retrofitting options were compared from a techno-economic point of view: A) Air-to-water heat pump (AWHP) and mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR), B) Exhaust air heat pump (EAHP) with low-temperature ventilation radiators, and C) Gas boiler and ventilation with MVHR. The systems were simulated for houses with two levels of heating demand and four different locations: Stockholm, Gdansk, Stuttgart and London. They were then evaluated by means of life cycle cost (LCC) and primary energy consumption. Dynamic simulations were done in TRNSYS 17. In most cases, system C with gas boiler and MVHR was found to be the cheapest retrofitting option from a life cycle perspective. The advantage over the heat pump systems was particularly clear for a house in Germany, due to the large discrepancy between national prices of natural gas and electricity. In Sweden, where the price difference is much smaller, the heat pump systems had almost as low or even lower life cycle costs than the gas boiler system. Considering the limited availability of natural gas in Sweden, systems A and B would be the better options. From a primary energy point of view system A was the best option throughout, while system B often had the highest primary energy consumption. The limited capacity of the EAHP forced it to use more auxiliary heating than the other systems did, which lowered its COP. The AWHP managed the DHW load better due to a higher capacity, but had a lower COP than the EAHP in space heating mode. Systems A and C were notably favoured by the air heat recovery, which significantly reduced the heating demand. It was also seen that the DHW share of the total heating consumption was, as expected, larger for the house with the lower space heating demand. This confirms the supposition that it is important to include DHW in the study of HVAC systems for retrofitting.