Amy Witkoski Stimpfel

Abstract

Background In order to meet the demands of a dynamic and complex health care landscape, nursing education must develop and implement programming to produce a highly educated nursing workforce. Interprofessional honors education in nursing with targeted mentorship is one such model. Purpose To describe undergraduate nursing student and faculty perceptions and beliefs of mentorship in the context of interprofessional honors education, and compare and contrast the perceptions and beliefs about mentorship in interprofessional honors education between undergraduate nursing students and faculty. Methods The study used a cross-sectional, descriptive design. Data were collected at an urban university in the northeast US, using a researcher-developed electronic survey. The sample included 24 full-time nursing faculty, and 142 undergraduate nursing students. Results Perceptions and beliefs regarding mentorship in the context of interprofessional honors education were similar for faculty and students, with both ranking mentorship among the most important components of a successful honors program. Conclusions Honors education with a dedicated mentorship component may be implemented to improve the undergraduate education experience, facilitate advanced degree attainment, and develop future nursing leaders.

Abstract

Honors programs in nursing can facilitate the professional development of high-achieving students, supporting their lifelong engagement in nursing practice, education, research, and health care policy issues. Strong mentoring relationships are commonly identified as essential to the success of nursing honors programs, but literature on mentoring relationships in an honors context is limited. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into faculty and student expectations for mentorship. Faculty and students shared similar expectations for both the mentor and mentee, highlighting key themes of engagement, facilitation, accountability, and collaboration as necessary for the success of an undergraduate nursing honors program.

Abstract

Background: “Capacity building” is an international development strategy which receives billions of dollars of investment annually and is utilized by major development agencies globally. However, there is a lack of consensus around what “capacity building” or even “capacity” itself, means. Nurses are the frequent target of capacity building programming in sub-Saharan Africa as they provide the majority of healthcare in that region. Objectives: This study explored how “capacity” was conceptualized and operationalized by capacity building practitioners working in sub-Saharan Africa to develop its nursing workforce, and to assess Hilderband and Grindle's (1996) “Dimensions of Capacity” model was for fit with “capacity's” definition in the field. Design: An integrative review of the literature using systematic search criteria. Data sources searched included: PubMed, the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, the Excerpt Medica Database, and Web of Science. Review methods: This review utilized conventional content analysis to assess how capacity building practitioners working in sub-Saharan Africa utilize the term “capacity” in the nursing context. Content analysis was conducted separately for how capacity building practitioners described “capacity” versus how their programs operationalized it. Identified themes were then assessed for fit with Hilderband and Grindle's (1996) “Dimensions of Capacity” model. Results: Analysis showed primary themes for conceptualization of capacity building of nurses by practitioners included: human resources for health, particularly pre- and post- nursing licensure training, and human (nursing) resource retention. Other themes included: management, health expenditure, and physical resources. There are several commonly used metrics for human resources for health, and a few for health expenditures, but none for management or physical resources. Overlapping themes of operationalization include: number of healthcare workers, post-licensure training, and physical resources. The Hilderband and Grindle (1996) model was a strong fit with how capacity is defined by practitioners working on nursing workforce issues in sub-Saharan Africa. If overall significant differences between conceptualization and operationalization emerged, as the reader I want to know what these differences were. Conclusions: This review indicates there is significant informal consensus on the definition of “capacity” and that the Hilderbrand and Grindle (1996) framework is a good representation of that consensus. This framework could be utilized by capacity building practitioners and researchers as those groups plan, execute, and evaluate nursing capacity building programming.

Abstract

Background: Preventable harm continues to be one of the leading causes of patient death. Each year about 400,000 patients die from sepsis, hospital acquired infections, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism. However, as shown in the recent reduction in hospital acquired infections, the number of deaths could be reduced if healthcare providers used evidence-based therapies, which are often included in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Purpose: The purpose of this integrative review is to appraise and synthesize the current literature on barriers to and facilitators in the use of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) by registered nurses. Design: Whittemore and Knafl integrative review methodology was used. Primary quantitative and qualitative studies about the nurses' use of CPGs and published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and August 2015 were included. Methods: The Critical Skills Appraisal Program (CASP) was used to critically appraise the quality of sixteen selected quantitative and qualitative studies. Results: Internal factors were attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge whereas format and usability of CPGs, resources, leadership, and organizational culture were external factors influencing CPG use. Conclusion: Given each barrier and facilitator, interventions and policies can be designed to increase nurses' use of CPGs to deliver more evidence based therapy. In order to improve the use of CPGs and to ensure high quality care for all patients, nurses must actively participate in development, implementation, and maintenance of CPGs.

Abstract

The changing demographics of the nursing workforce, including large numbers of impending retirements, highlight the need for innovative programs to attract the next generation of nursing leaders, educators, and researchers. Nursing honors programs provide an enhanced educational experience for high-achieving and highly motivated students, developing them as future nursing leaders. This review describes the current perspectives, characteristics, and values of nursing honors programs, opportunities for implementation, and recommendations for integration within nursing education.

Abstract

Objective To examine the relationship between Magnet recognition, an indicator of nursing excellence, and patients' experience with their hospitalization reported in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. Data Sources This secondary analysis includes cross-sectional data from the 2010 HCAHPS survey, the American Hospital Association, and the American Nurses Credentialing Center. Study Design We conducted a retrospective observational study. Data Collection Using common hospital identifiers, we created a matched set of 212 Magnet hospitals and 212 non-Magnet hospitals. Principal Findings Patients in Magnet hospitals gave their hospitals higher overall ratings, were more likely to recommend their hospital, and reported more positive care experiences with nurse communication. Conclusions Magnet recognition is associated with better patient care experiences, which may positively enhance reimbursement for hospitals.

Abstract

Background: Research has documented an association between Magnet hospitals and better outcomes for nurses and patients. However, little longitudinal evidence exists to support a causal link between Magnet recognition and outcomes. Objective: To compare changes over time in surgical patient outcomes, nurse-reported quality, and nurse outcomes in a sample of hospitals that attained Magnet recognition between 1999 and 2007 with hospitals that remained non-Magnet. Research Design: Retrospective, 2-stage panel design using 4 secondary data sources. Subjects: One hundred thirty-six Pennsylvania hospitals (11 emerging Magnets and 125 non-Magnets). Measures: American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet recognition; risk-adjusted rates of surgical 30-day mortality and failure-to-rescue, nurse-reported quality measures, and nurse outcomes; the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index. Methods: Fixed-effects difference models were used to compare changes in outcomes between emerging Magnet hospitals and hospitals that remained non-Magnet. Results: Emerging Magnet hospitals demonstrated markedly greater improvements in their work environments than other hospitals. On average, the changes in 30-day surgical mortality and failure-to-rescue rates over the study period were more pronounced in emerging Magnet hospitals than in non-Magnet hospitals, by 2.4 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (P<0.01) and 6.1 fewer deaths per 1000 patients (P=0.02), respectively. Similar differences in the changes for emerging Magnet hospitals and non-Magnet hospitals were observed in nurse-reported quality of care and nurse outcomes. Conclusions: In general, Magnet recognition is associated with significant improvements over time in the quality of the work environment, and in patient and nurse outcomes that exceed those of non-Magnet hospitals.

Abstract

The organizational context of medical practice changed substantially over the past half century, resulting in new opportunities and a more favorable environment for the evolution of allied and nonphysician health professionals. This article chronicles the organizational developments leading to the growth in nonphysician health professions and the changing medical division of labor. Recent trends in nursing, the rise of advanced practice nurses and physician assistants (PAs), and the status of physical and occupational therapists are examined.

Abstract

Background: Registered nurses across the globe bear a heavy injury burden. Every shift, nurses are exposed to a variety of hazards that can jeopardize their health, which negatively impacts their ability to provide high-quality patient care. Previous research suggests that inexperienced, or newly licensed nurses, may have an increased risk for certain occupational injuries. However, the current knowledge base is insufficient to fully understand how work hours influence newly licensed nurses' occupational injury, given the significant variation in hospital organization and work characteristics. Objective: To describe newly licensed nurses' shift work characteristics and determine the association between shift type and scheduling characteristics and nurse injury, before and after adjusting for individual and combined effects of demographics, external context, organizational context, and work context, following the Organization of Work model. Design: This study is a secondary analysis of a nationally representative survey of newly licensed registered nurses using a cross-sectional design. Participants: The analytic sample includes 1744 newly licensed registered nurses from 34 states and the District of Columbia who reported working in a hospital and were within 6-18 months of passing their state licensure exam at the time of survey administration. Methods: Descriptive statistics were calculated, followed by bivariate and multivariate Poisson regression models to assess the relationship between shift type and scheduling characteristics and nurse injury. Lastly, full models with the addition of demographics, external context, organizational context, and work context variables were calculated. Results: The majority (79%) of newly licensed nurses worked 12-h shifts, a near majority worked night shift (44%), and over half (61%) worked overtime (mandatory or voluntary) weekly. Nurses working weekly overtime were associated with a 32% [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.32, CI 1.07-1.62] increase in the risk of a needle stick and nurses working night shift were associated with a 16% [IRR 1.16, CI 1.02-1.33] increase in the risk of a sprain or strain injury. Conclusions: Overtime and night shift work were significantly associated with increased injury risk in newly licensed nurses independent of other work factors and demographic characteristics. The findings warrant further study given the long-term consequences of these injuries, costs associated with treatment, and loss of worker productivity.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between Magnet Recognition® and nurse-reported quality of care. BACKGROUND: Magnet® hospitals are recognized for nursing excellence and quality patient outcomes; however, few studies have explored contributing factors for these superior outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of linked nurse survey data, hospital administrative data, and a listing of American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet hospitals. Multivariate regressions were modeled before and after propensity score matching to assess the relationship between Magnet status and quality of care. A mediation model assessed the indirect effect of the professional practice environment on quality of care. RESULTS: Nurse-reported quality of care was significantly associated with Magnet Recognition after matching. The professional practice environment mediates the relationship between Magnet status and quality of care. CONCLUSION: A prominent feature of Magnet hospitals, a professional practice environment that is supportive of nursing, plays a role in explaining why Magnet hospitals have better nurse-reported quality of care.