Emma Harbeck

Patient participation improves patient outcomes, but factors that predict participation in pressure injury prevention (PIP) are relatively unknown. This study aimed to identify patient‐related factors predictive of patient participation in pressure injury prevention (PPPIP) in hospitalised medical and surgical patients and to assess the psychometric properties of the PPPIP scale. This observational substudy recruited consenting adults at risk of pressure who participated in a parent trial. The seven‐item PPPIP scale was administered within 48 h of recruitment, with higher scores reflecting more participation. Multiple regression was used to identify patient‐related factors predictive of patient participation. The scale's psychometric properties were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha. In total, usable data were obtained from 856 patients. Mean PPPIP scale scores were relatively high, with 571 (66.7%) scores reflecting agreement or strong agreement. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.81, and most confirmatory factor analysis criteria for construct validity were met. Only the use of mobility aids was statistically significant in the model, but it predicted a small amount of variability in PPPIP score (adjusted R ² = 0.017; p < 0.001). Targeting patients with limited mobility may be a useful strategy when trying to engage patients in PIP if resources are limited.

Background. Missed nursing care, which has been explored in various acute care settings, results in adverse patient outcomes and job dissatisfaction in nurses. However, little is known about missed care in the operating room. Objective. This study tested a hypothesised model to identify relationships between nurses age, years of experience in the operating room, job satisfaction, and intention to leave which have direct and indirect effects on the frequency of missed care. The frequency of missed care was hypothesised to be mediated by nurses reported perioperative competence and the reasons for missed care. Design. A cross-sectional design using an online survey of Australian perioperative nurses was undertaken in 2022. Methods. All Australian College of Perioperative Nurses members were invited to participate. Missed nursing care was measured using the MISSCARE Survey-OR. Age, years of experience, and intention to leave were single-item measures. Satisfaction was a three-item scale. Competence was measured by the 18-item Perceived Perioperative Competence Scale-Short Form. Structural equation modelling was used to test our hypothesised model. Results. Of the 5,500 nurses invited, 853 (15.5) responded, but only 602 (10.9) participant responses were usable for inclusion in the model. The model demonstrates that participants age directly predicted the frequency of missed care, nurse role satisfaction, perceived perioperative competence, and reasons for missed care. The reasons for missed care and perceived perioperative competence were mediators that were negatively associated with the frequency of missed care. Conclusions. While the final model explained 22.6 of the frequency of missed care, other variables not identified in this study may influence this outcome.

Aim: To develop a parsimonious, shortened version of the Perceived Perioperative Competence Scale‐Revised for perioperative nurses to complete as part of their specialty training while retaining good psychometric properties.Design: A longitudinal online survey was adopted.Methods: A national sample of perioperative nurses from Australia completed an online survey at two different time points 6 months apart between February and October 2021. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for item reduction and construct validity, while criterion, convergent validity and internal consistency were examined.Results: Usable data for psychometric assessment were obtained from 485 operating room nurses at time 1 and 164 nurses at time 2. The original 40‐item revised scale was reduced to an 18‐item measure, maintaining its six domains. Cronbach's alpha for the 18‐item scale was .92 at time 1 and .90 at time 2. Scale validation demonstrated moderate to weak positive relationships in perceived competence scores relative to general self‐efficacy, years of operating room experience, postgraduate education and recency of training.Conclusions: Results suggest the 18‐item Perceived Perioperative Competence Scale‐Revised Short Form has initial robust psychometric properties and may be implemented in clinical settings as part of perioperative transition‐to‐practice, orientation programs and yearly professional development reviews.Implications for the Profession: This short‐form scale can help prepare perioperative nurses to demonstrate clinical competence in a climate of increasing professional demands using a valid measure of competence required in clinical practice.Impact: Short and validated scales of perioperative competence are needed in clinical practice. Assessment of practising operating room nurses' perceived competence is essential in quality care provision, workforce planning and human resource management. This study provides an 18‐item measure of the previously validated 40‐item Perceived Perioperative Competence Scale‐Revised. This scale can help provide an option for future testing of perioperative nurses' competence in clinical or research settings.Patient or Public Contribution: Perioperative nurses were involved in the design of the study, particularly in the assessment of validation of the tools used in the study.

Missed nursing care is care that is delayed, partially completed, or not completed at all. The aim of this overview of reviews was to identify the nursing care that is missed, the factors that influence missed nursing care and the outcomes from it. To be included, reviews had to use the systematic review process and focus on hospital care. Databases were searched from inception until August sixth, 2020. One author screened the papers and extracted data on included reviews and a second checked this. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the reviews. Seven reviews were included in this overview. Categories of care missed included: (a) communication and information sharing; (b) self‐management, autonomy, and education including care planning, discharge planning and decision; (c) fundamental physical care; and (d) emotional and psychological care including spiritual support. Factors associated with missed care were related to staffing levels and/or labor resources skill mix, material resources not being available, patient acuity and teamwork/communication. Outcomes of missed nursing care included: less/poorer quality of patient care, patient satisfaction, and nurses' job satisfaction, increased patient adverse events, and the organizational outcomes of increasing hospital length of stay and hospital readmission. In‐depth qualitative and mixed methods research is needed to better understand how nurses prioritize care and why care is missed. Longitudinal and experimental research is required to better clarify if these relationships between missed care and negative patient outcomes are likely cause and effect.

Active involvement of patients in planning, conducting, and disseminating research has been adopted by many organisations internationally, but the extent to which this occurs in surgical wound care is not evident. This scoping review aimed to identify how patients have been involved in surgical wound care research and the quality of its reporting. Full‐text studies focused on preoperative and postoperative surgical wound care in the acute care setting, published in English between 2004 and 2019, were included in the review. Screening, data charting, and quality assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently, adjudicated by a third, and then reviewed by five others. Thematic analysis synthesised the findings. Of the eight included studies, seven explained the methods for patient involvement and five described aims related to patient involvement and commented on patient involvement in the discussion. None met all of the quality assessment criteria. Three themes emerged: involvement in modifying and refining research processes, connecting and balancing expert and patient views, and sharing personal insights. Recommendations to improve patient involvement in surgical wounds research include the following: using framework and tools to inform future research; training researcher and patients in their respective research roles; and ongoing monitoring of patient involvement.

Objectives: To systematically assess the incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries in adult ICU patients and the most frequently occurring pressure injury sites.Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature.Study Selection: Observational studies reporting incidence rates, cumulative incidence, and prevalence of pressure injuries.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analyses of pooled weighted estimates were calculated using random effect models with 95% CIs reported due to high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses included studies that used skin inspection to identify a pressure injury, studies at low risk of bias, studies that excluded stage 1 and each stage of pressure injury.Data Synthesis: Twenty-two studies, 10 reporting cumulative incidence of pressure injury irrespective of stage, one reporting incidence rate (198/1,000 hospital-days), and 12 reporting prevalence were included. The 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 10.0–25.9% and 16.9–23.8%. In studies that used skin inspection to identify pressure injuries, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence was 9.4–27.5%; all prevalence studies used skin inspection therefore the results were unchanged. In studies assessed as low risk of bias, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 6.6–36.8% and 12.2–24.5%. Excluding stage 1, the 95% CI of cumulative incidence and prevalence were 0.0–23.8% and 12.4–15.5%. Five studies totalling 406 patients reported usable data on location; 95% CI of frequencies of PIs were as follows: sacrum 26.9–48.0%, buttocks 4.1–46.4%, heel 18.5–38.9%, hips 10.9–15.7%, ears 4.3–19.7%, and shoulders 0.0–40.2%.Conclusions: Although well-designed studies are needed to ensure the scope of the problem of pressure injuries is better understood, it is clear prevention strategies are also required.