Nursing student-patient relationship and associated factors

The purpose of this study was to analyse the nursing student-patient relationship and factors associated with this relationship from the point of view of both students and patients, and to identify factors that predict the type of relationship. The ultimate goal is to improve supervised clinical practicum with a view to supporting students in their reciprocal collaborative relationships with patients, increase their preparedness to meet patients’ health needs, and thus to enhance the quality of patient care. The study was divided into two phases. In the first phase (1999-2005), a literature review concerning the student-patient relationship was conducted (n=104 articles) and semi-structured interviews carried out with nursing students (n=30) and internal medicine patients (n=30). Data analysis was by means of qualitative content analysis and Student-Patient Relationship Scales, which were specially developed for this research. In the second phase (2005-2007), the data were collected by SPR scales among nursing students (n=290) and internal medicine patients (n=242). The data were analysed statistically by SPSS 12.0 software. The results revealed three types of student-patient relationship: a mechanistic relationship focusing on the student’s learning needs; an authoritative relationship focusing on what the student assumes is in the patient’s best interest; and a facilitative relationship focusing on the common good of both student and patient. Students viewed their relationship with patients more often as facilitative and authoritative than mechanistic, while in patients’ assessments the authoritative relationship occurred most frequently and the facilitative relationship least frequently. Furthermore, students’ and patients’ views on their relationships differed significantly. A number of background factors, contextual factors and consequences of the relationship were found to be associated with the type of relationship. In the student data, factors that predicted the type of relationship were age, current year of study and support received in the relationship with patient. The higher the student’s age, the more likely the relationship with the patient was facilitative. Fourth year studies and the support of a person other than a supervisor were significantly associated with an authoritative relationship. Among patients, several factors were found to predict the type of nursing student-patient relationships. Significant factors associated with a facilitative relationship were university-level education, several previous hospitalizations, admission to hospital for a medical problem, experience of caring for an ill family member and patient’s positive perception of atmosphere during collaboration and of student’s personal and professional growth. In patients, positive perceptions of student’s personal and professional attributes and patient’s improved health and a greater commitment to self-care, on the other hand, were significantly associated with an authoritative relationship, whereas positive perceptions of one’s own attributes as a patient were significantly associated with a mechanistic relationship. It is recommended that further research on the student-patient relationship and related factors should focus on questions of content, methodology and education.

Impact of extracardiac findings during cardiac MR on patient management and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used to assess heart diseases. Relevant non-cardiac diseases may also be incidentally found on CMR images. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and nature of incidental extra-cardiac findings (IEF) and their clinical impact in non-selected patients referred for CMR. MATERIAL/METHODS: MR images of 762 consecutive patients (515 men, age: 56±18 years) referred for CMR were prospectively interpreted by 2 radiologists blinded for any previous imaging study. IEFs were classified as major when requiring treatment, follow-up, or further investigation. Clinical follow-up was performed by checking hospital information records and by calling referring physicians. The 2 endpoints were: 1) non-cardiac death and new treatment related to major IEFs, and 2) hospitalization related to major IEFs during follow-up. RESULTS: Major IEFs were proven in 129 patients (18.6% of the study population), 14% of those being unknown before CMR. During 15±6 month follow-up, treatment of confirmed major IEFs was initiated in 1.4%, and no non-cardiac deaths occurred. Hospitalization occurred in 8 patients (1.0% of the study population) with confirmed major IEFs and none occurred in the remaining 110 patients with unconfirmed/unexplored major IEFs (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for major IEFs in a population referred for routine CMR changed management in 1.4% of patients. Major IEFs unknown before CMR but without further exploration, however, carried a favorable prognosis over a follow-up period of 15 months.