Career engagement : Investigating intraindividual predictors of weekly fluctuations in proactive career behaviors

The present study applies a micro-level perspective on how within-individual differences in motivational and social-cognitive factors affect the weekly fluctuations of engagement in proactive career behaviors among a group of 67 German university students. Career self-efficacy beliefs, perceived career barriers, experienced social career support, positive and negative emotions, and career engagement were assessed weekly for 13 consecutive weeks. Hierarchical linear regression analyses showed that above-average levels of career engagement within individuals were predicted by higher than average perceived social support and positive emotions during a given week. Conversely, within-individual differences in self-efficacy, barriers, and negative emotions had no effect. The results suggest that career interventions should provide boosts in social support and positive emotions.

The career engagement scale : Development and validation of a measure of proactive career behaviors

Careers today increasingly require engagement in proactive career behaviors; however, there is a lack of validated measures assessing the general degree to which somebody is engaged in such career behaviors. We describe the results of six studies with six independent samples of German university students (total N = 2,854), working professionals (total N = 561), and university graduates (N = 141) that report the development and validation of the Career Engagement Scale - a measure of the degree to which somebody is proactively developing her or his career as expressed by diverse career behaviors. The studies provide support for measurement invariance across gender and time. In support of convergent and discriminant validity, we find that career engagement is more prevalent among working professionals than among university students and that this scale has incremental validity above several specific career behaviors regarding its relation to vocational identity clarity and career self-efficacy beliefs among students and to job and career satisfaction among employees. In support of incremental predictive validity, beyond the effects of several more specific career behaviors, career engagement while at university predicts higher job and career satisfaction several months later after beginning work.

Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: EDA is mainstay of multimodal pain management within enhanced recovery pathways [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)]. For laparoscopic colorectal resections, the benefit of epidurals remains debated. Some consider EDA as useful, whereas others perceive epidurals as unnecessary or even deleterious. METHODS: A total of 128 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resections were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing EDA versus PCA. Primary end point was medical recovery. Overall complications, hospital stay, perioperative vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Final analysis included 65 EDA patients and 57 PCA patients. Both groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Medical recovery required a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7.5 days) in EDA patients and 4 days (IQR, 3-6 days) in the PCA group (P = 0.082). PCA patients had significantly less overall complications [19 (33%) vs 35 (54%); P = 0.029] but a similar hospital stay [5 days (IQR, 4-8 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 4.5-12 days); P = 0.434]. Significantly more EDA patients needed vasopressor treatment perioperatively (90% vs 74%, P = 0.018), the day of surgery (27% vs 4%, P < 0.001), and on postoperative day 1 (29% vs 4%, P < 0.001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurals seem to slow down recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections without adding obvious benefits. EDA can therefore not be recommended as part of ERAS pathways in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Assessment of inflammatory Bowel Disease patient's needs and problems from a nursing perspective

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed at assessing Inflammatory Bowel Disease patients' needs and current nursing practice to investigate to what extent consensus statements (European Crohn's and Colitis Organization) on the nursing roles in caring for patients with IBD concur with local practice. METHODS: We used a mixed-method convergent design to combine quantitative data prospectively collected in the Swiss IBD cohort study and qualitative data from structured interviews with IBD healthcare experts. Symptoms, quality of life, and anxiety and depression scores were retrieved from physician charts and patient self-reported questionnaires. Descriptive analyses were performed based on quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: 230 patients of a single center were included, 60% of patients were males, and median age was 40 (range 18-85). The prevalence of abdominal pain was 42%. Self-reported data were obtained from 75 out of 230 patients. General health was perceived significantly lower compared with the general population (p < 0.001). Prevalence of tiredness was 73%; sleep problems, 78%; issues related to work, 20%; sexual constraints, 35%; diarrhea, 67%; being afraid of not finding a bathroom, 42%; depression, 11%; and anxiety symptoms, 23%. According to experts' interviews, the consensus statements are found mostly relevant with many recommendations that are not yet realized in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Identified prevalence may help clinicians in detecting patients at risk and improve patient management. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Réhabilitation améliorée après chirurgie--L'ere de la prise en charge optimale du patient chirurgical [Enhanced Recovery After Surgery--optimal management of the surgical patient].

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal, standardized and evidence-based perioperative care pathway. With ERAS, postoperative complications are significantly lowered, and, as a secondary effect, length of hospital stay and health cost are reduced. The patient recovers better and faster allowing to reduce in addition the workload of healthcare providers. Despite the hospital discharge occurs sooner, there is no increased charge of the outpatient care. ERAS can be safely applied to any patient by a tailored approach. The general practitioner plays an essential role in ERAS by assuring the continuity of the information and the follow-up of the patient.

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.