METHODS: A multi-centric cross-sectional survey was conducted in Karachi at different institutions belonging to the private as well as government sector from January to March 2018. We used a structured questionnaire which was adapted from pretested questionnaires that have been used previously in similar studies. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS v22.0, where adequate knowledge was taken as a score of at least 50%. P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective interventional study with a before and after design requested a single group of 96 nurses in 15 wards actively providing chemotherapy to answer a self-administered questionnaire. A performance checklist was then used to determine the compliance of all these wards with the recommended safety measures. The first and second assessments took 2 months respectively with a 9-month intervention period. Pharmacist-based interventions included a series of technical, educational and administrative support measures consisting of the initiation of closed-system cytotoxic drug reconstitution (CDR) services, courses, training workshops and guideline updates.
RESULTS: The mean age of nurses was 32.2∓6.19 years. Most of them were female (93.8%) and married (72.9%). The mean knowledge score of nurses was significantly increased from 45.5∓10.52 to 73.4∓8.88 out of 100 (p<0.001) at the end of the second assessment. Overall, the mean practice score among the wards was improved from 7.6∓5.51 to 15.3∓2.55 out of 20 (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist-based interventions improved the knowledge, attitude and safe practices of nurses in cytotoxic drug handling. Further assessment may help to confirm the sustainability of the improved practices.
DESIGN: This was a qualitative study comprising semi-structured face-to-face interviews guided by 10 open-ended questions. Interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved and no new ideas were formed. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed for themes. To derive themes, we employed directed content analysis of transcript data. Coding was completed using a combination of open, axial and selective coding.
SETTING: Four nursing homes in Singapore.
PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 17 participants (comprising 4 doctors, 4 pharmacists and 9 nurses).
RESULTS: Two key themes were identified, enablers and challenges. These were enablers and challenges faced by doctors, pharmacists and nurses towards deprescribing. The identified subthemes for enablers of deprescribing were: (1) awareness of medications that are unnecessary or could be targeted for deprescribing; (2) improving quality of life for patients with limited life expectancy; (3) improving communication between doctors, pharmacists and nurses; (4) systematic deprescribing practice and educational tools and (5) acknowledgement of possible benefits of deprescribing. The identified subthemes for challenges of deprescribing were: (1) symptoms not acknowledged as possibly drug-related; (2) lack of knowledge in patient's and family members' preferences; (3) lack of coordination between health professionals in hospitals and nursing homes and (4) limited tools for deprescribing. The development of a local guideline, mentoring nurses, case discussions, better shared decision-making and improving multidisciplinary communication, may help to support the process of deprescribing.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study highlighted that deprescribing in the nursing homes is perceived by health professionals to be challenging and future research could assess how routine case studies, mentoring and better multidisciplinary communication could improve deprescribing knowledge and process in the nursing homes.
BACKGROUND: Critical thinking is currently considered as an essential component of nurses' professional judgement and clinical decision-making. If confirmed, nursing curricula may be revised emphasising on critical thinking with the expectation to improve clinical decision-making and thus better health care.
DESIGN: Integrated literature review.
METHODS: The integrative review was carried out after a comprehensive literature search using electronic databases Ovid, EBESCO MEDLINE, EBESCO CINAHL, PROQuest and Internet search engine Google Scholar. Two hundred and 22 articles from January 1980 to end of 2015 were retrieved. All studies evaluating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, published in English language with nurses or nursing students as the study population, were included. No qualitative studies were found investigating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, while 10 quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated using the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool. As a result, one study was excluded due to a low-quality score, with the remaining nine accepted for this review.
RESULTS: Four of nine studies established a positive relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making. Another five studies did not demonstrate a significant correlation. The lack of refinement in studies' design and instrumentation were arguably the main reasons for the inconsistent results.
CONCLUSIONS: Research studies yielded contradictory results as regard to the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making; therefore, the evidence is not convincing. Future quantitative studies should have representative sample size, use critical thinking measurement tools related to the healthcare sector and evaluate the predisposition of test takers towards their willingness and ability to think. There is also a need for qualitative studies to provide a fresh approach in exploring the relationship between these variables uncovering currently unknown contributing factors.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review confirmed that evidence to support the existence of relationships between critical thinking and clinical decision-making is still unsubstantiated. Therefore, it serves as a call for nurse leaders and nursing academics to produce quality studies in order to firmly support or reject the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant correlation between critical thinking and clinical decision-making.