Robertsbrandstrup9745

Using the expertise of a specially trained team of CNSs, an effective plan was established to ensure safe, optimal care during the COVID-19 pandemic and effectively support frontline nurses.

Using the expertise of a specially trained team of CNSs, an effective plan was established to ensure safe, optimal care during the COVID-19 pandemic and effectively support frontline nurses.

The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-driven catheter removal protocol among nurses in a hospital setting.

A mixed-methods design was used. A modified version of the Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile was used in this study, along with 3 open-ended questions.

Staff nurses assigned to care for nonpregnant, cognitively intact adults with a short-term Foley catheter were asked to apply a nurse-driven catheter removal protocol on the enrolled patient every 12 hours. They were asked to complete a modified version of the Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile and open-ended questionnaire each time they used the protocol.

A total of 13 questionnaires were completed (52% completion rate). Nurses reported that the nurse-driven catheter removal protocol was highly acceptable in intensive care units and intermediate care units, but not in medical-surgical units. HA130 Nurses felt that the protocol should be effective in preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infection, that they would be willing to use the protocol with their loved ones, and that overall, the protocol was helpful for their patient. However, they did not feel that their patient's risk for catheter-associated urinary tract infection was high enough to warrant using the protocol. Barriers to using the protocol as planned included encrustation, inconvenient times of day, unawareness, and a desire to follow orders and current institutional policies.

Findings from this study generally support the acceptability of the nurse-driven catheter removal protocol, particularly in higher-acuity units. Recommendations are provided to help clinical nurse specialists support adherence to these protocols.

Findings from this study generally support the acceptability of the nurse-driven catheter removal protocol, particularly in higher-acuity units. Recommendations are provided to help clinical nurse specialists support adherence to these protocols.

The purpose of this article is to provide the clinical nurse specialist with an interactive, creative, and fun approach using an escape room to increase the retention and application of knowledge about caring for patients with sepsis and improve patient care outcomes.

This project involved the design of a healthcare-based escape room, where clinical nurses and interprofessional learners engaged in a series of puzzles and problem-solving experiences to apply clinical judgment and critical thinking about patient care.

Knowles' theory of adult learning guided the development of this gamified learning.

The clinical nurse specialist was critical to the success of the escape room. The escape room created an innovative learning environment, expanding opportunities to engage staff and promote high-quality care for best patient outcomes.

The benefits of incorporating adult learning principles with gamification-based education as a teaching strategy are evident in the feedback and overwhelmingly positive responses received from participants. The successes of the sepsis escape room have presented opportunities to continue supporting progressive, fun, and evidence-based learning environments and positively impact both nursing education and patient care outcomes.

The benefits of incorporating adult learning principles with gamification-based education as a teaching strategy are evident in the feedback and overwhelmingly positive responses received from participants. The successes of the sepsis escape room have presented opportunities to continue supporting progressive, fun, and evidence-based learning environments and positively impact both nursing education and patient care outcomes.

The ratio of lesion length (LL) to the fourth power of minimal lumen diameter (MLD) (LL/MLD4) is a Poiseuille-based index with good diagnostic accuracy for the detection of coronary lesions with abnormal fractional flow reserve (FFR). We aimed to evaluate the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on its performance in intermediate coronary stenoses.

We performed quantitative coronary angiography and simultaneous FFR measurement in 324 patients (234 non-DM and 90 DM) with 335 coronary lesions. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for angiographic parameters was determined, using an FFR value ≤0.80 to indicate the physiological significance of coronary stenoses.

In the non-DM group, FFR was significantly related to percent diameter stenosis (%DS) (R = -0.238) and LL/MLD4 ratio (R = -0.301; P < 0.001 for both). In the DM group, there was no correlation between %DS and FFR, whereas a close-to-threshold correlation was observed for the LL/MLD4 ratio (R = -0.205; P = 0.048). The AUC of LL/MLD4 ratio was significantly different between non-diabetic and diabetic subjects (0.738 vs. 0.540; P = 0.024). Moreover, the LL/MLD4 ratio showed higher AUCs than %DS (0.738 vs. 0.635; P = 0.017) and LL (0.738 vs. 0.634; P = 0.024) in non-diabetic population but this superiority did not exist in diabetic population.

We showed good diagnostic accuracy of LL/MLD4 ratio for identifying ischemic lesions in patients without DM. However, there was an impaired performance in diabetic patients and thus FFR measurement is essential to determine their hemodynamic status.

We showed good diagnostic accuracy of LL/MLD4 ratio for identifying ischemic lesions in patients without DM. However, there was an impaired performance in diabetic patients and thus FFR measurement is essential to determine their hemodynamic status.

The optimal treatment for patients suffering from stable obstructive coronary artery disease (SOCAD) is controversial. Many studies have examined the value of performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in these patients but so far no study has been able to demonstrate an improvement in outcomes by performing PCI in addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT). This study aimed to examine the added value of performing PCI plus OMT vs. OMT alone regarding cardiovascular outcomes.

We performed a systematic search and a meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials comparing PCI plus OMT vs. OMT in SOCAD patients. We included six trials (N = 11 144) with follow-up ranges 2.2-11.4 years. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference between PCI + OMT vs. OMT group regarding all-cause mortality, odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 [confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.12, P = 0.79, I2 = 0%]. In addition, we have found no difference between the two groups regarding cardiovascular mortality, OR = 0.91 (CI 0.76-1.08, P = 0.