METHODS: An integrative literature review was conducted to investigate barriers impacting the quality of end-of-life care. This review process involved searching database like MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect up to November 2023. Search strategies focused on keywords related to barriers in end-of-life care and critical care nurses from October 30th to November 10th, 2023. The inclusion criteria specified full-text English articles published between 2010 and 2023 that addressed barriers perceived by critical care nurses. This integrative review employs an integrated thematic analysis approach, which combines elements of deductive and inductive analysis, to explore the identified barriers, with coding and theme development overseen by the primary and secondary authors.
RESULTS: Out of 103 articles published, 11 articles were included in the review. There were eight cross-sectional descriptive studies and three qualitative studies, which demonstrated barriers affecting end-of-life care quality. Quality appraisal using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was completed by two authors confirmed the high credibility of the selected studies, indicating the presence of high-quality evidence across the reviewed articles. Thematic analysis led to the three main themes (1) barriers related to patients and their families, (2) barriers related to nurses and their demographic characteristics, and (3) barriers related to health care environment and institutions.
CONCLUSION: This review highlights barriers influencing the quality of end of life care perceived by critical care nurses and the gaps that need attention to improve the quality of care provided for patients in their final stages and their fsmilies within the context of critical care. This review also notes the need for additional research to investigate the uncover patterns and insights that have not been fully explored in the existing literature to enhance understanding of these barriers. This can help to inform future research, care provision, and policy-making. Specifically, this review examines how these barriers interact, their cumulative impact on care quality, and potential strategies to overcome.
AIM: To understand whether critical care nurses' critical thinking disposition affects their clinical decision-making skills.
METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study in which Malay and English translations of the Short Form-Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory-Chinese Version (SF-CTDI-CV) and the Clinical Decision-making Nursing Scale (CDMNS) were used to collect data from 113 nurses working in seven critical care units of a tertiary hospital on the east coast of Malaysia. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling in October 2015.
RESULTS: Critical care nurses perceived both their critical thinking disposition and decision-making skills to be high, with a total score of 71.5 and a mean of 48.55 for the SF-CTDI-CV, and a total score of 161 and a mean of 119.77 for the CDMNS. One-way ANOVA test results showed that while age, gender, ethnicity, education level and working experience factors significantly impacted critical thinking (p<0.05), only age and working experience significantly impacted clinical decision-making (p<0.05). Pearson's correlation analysis showed a strong and positive relationship between critical care nurses' critical thinking and clinical decision-making (r=0.637, p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: While this small-scale study has shown a relationship exists between critical care nurses' critical thinking disposition and clinical decision-making in one hospital, further investigation using the same measurement tools is needed into this relationship in diverse clinical contexts and with greater numbers of participants. Critical care nurses' perceived high level of critical thinking and decision-making also needs further investigation.
METHOD: A systematic review and metanalysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of science, CINHAL, Medline, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time-limt and until 24 June 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using I2 test and the publication bias was assessed by the Egger's test at the significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS: The I2 test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the selected studies, based on the results of I2 test, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians is I2: 97.4% and I2: 97.3% respectively. After following the systematic review processes, 7 cross-sectional studies were selected for meta-analysis. Six studies with the sample size of 3745 nurses were examined in and the prevalence of sleep disturbances was approximated to be 34.8% (95% CI: 24.8-46.4%). The prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians was also measured in 5 studies with the sample size of 2123 physicians. According to the results, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians caring for the COVID-19 patients was reported to be 41.6% (95% CI: 27.7-57%).
CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers, as the front line of the fight against COVID-19, are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of this disease than other groups in society. Increasing workplace stress increases sleep disturbances in the medical staff, especially nurses and physicians. In other words, increased stress due to the exposure to COVID-19 increases the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians. Therefore, it is important for health policymakers to provide solutions and interventions to reduce the workplace stress and pressures on medical staff.