PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to summarize and appraise the methodological quality of primary studies on interventions for management of occupational stress among intensive and critical care nurses.

METHODS: This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify primary studies that assessed the effectiveness of interventions in managing occupational stress among intensive and critical care nurses using multiple databases from January 2009 to June 2019.

RESULTS: Twelve studies published between 2011 and 2019 were eligible for inclusion. These included studies were classified as being of good or fair quality. The consensus across the included studies was that, compared with control condition, cognitive-behavioural skills training and mindfulness-based intervention were more effective in reducing occupational stress among intensive and critical care unit nurses.

CONCLUSION: Further research should focus on methodologically strong studies by blinding the outcome assessors, using Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design with an active control group, using standardized assessment tools, and reporting enough details about the stress management intervention-related adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate and critically appraise the evidence on the prevalence, causes and severity of medication administration errors (MAEs) amongst neonates in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs).

METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching nine electronic databases and the grey literature for studies, without language and publication date restrictions. The pooled prevalence of MAEs was estimated using a random-effects model. Data on error causation were synthesised using Reason's model of accident causation.

RESULTS: Twenty unique studies were included. Amongst direct observation studies reporting total opportunity for errors as the denominator for MAEs, the pooled prevalence was 59.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.4-81.3, I2 = 99.5%). Whereas, the non-direct observation studies reporting medication error reports as the denominator yielded a pooled prevalence of 64.8% (95% CI 46.6-81.1, I2 = 98.2%). The common reported causes were error-provoking environments (five studies), while active failures were reported by three studies. Only three studies examined the severity of MAEs, and each utilised a different method of assessment.

METHOD: This qualitative study involved four trained researchers conducting in-depth interviews (IDI) based on a semi-structured interview guide. The participants were ICU patients and family members. All IDIs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Four researchers independently analyzed the data via thematic analysis with the aid of QDA Miner Lite®. The themes and subthemes were generated and confirmed by literature and expert opinion.

RESULTS: Six IDIs were conducted with three patients and three family members, whose ages ranged from 31 to 64 years old. One pair of participants consisted of a patient and his respective family member, while the other four participants did not have a familial relationship with each other. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: (I) critical care services; (II) physical spaces; and (III) monitoring technology. Medical, psychological, physical, and social needs for critical care services were expressed by both patients and family members. Patients' needs in clinical spaces were highlighted as a conducive ICU environment with ambient temperature and controlled noise levels. In non-clinical spaces, family members expressed a need for more chairs in the waiting area. Participants expressed the need for call bells as well as patients' negative perceptions of medical equipment alarms in the ICU when it pertained to monitoring technology.

METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers and complications during ETI.

RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n=632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p=0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p=0.004), moderate quality of evidence.