Clear role descriptions promote the quality of interprofessional collaboration. Currently, it is unclear to what extent healthcare professionals consider pharmaceutical care (PC) activities to be nurses’ responsibility in order to obtain best care quality. This study aimed to create and evaluate a framework describing potential nursing tasks in PC and to investigate nurses’ level of responsibility. A framework of PC tasks and contextual factors was developed based on literature review and previous DeMoPhaC project results. Tasks and context were cross-sectionally evaluated using an online survey in 14 European countries. A total of 923 nurses, 240 physicians and 199 pharmacists responded. The majority would consider nurses responsible for tasks within: medication self-management (86–97%), patient education (85–96%), medication safety (83–95%), monitoring adherence (82–97%), care coordination (82–95%), and drug monitoring (78–96%). The most prevalent level of responsibility was ‘with shared responsibility’. Prescription management tasks were considered to be nurses’ responsibility by 48–81% of the professionals. All contextual factors were indicated as being relevant for nurses’ role in PC by at least 74% of the participants. No task nor contextual factor was removed from the framework after evaluation. This framework can be used to enable healthcare professionals to openly discuss allocation of specific (shared) responsibilities and tasks.
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on preoperative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on postoperative interventions (one review assessed both pre-postoperative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre-and-postoperative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
Background: Being able to care for and cope with one’s stoma adequately may significantly impact patient’s wellbeing. A well-designed mobile application (app) may improve and solve some of the difficulties patients encounter. This study aims to gain a better understanding of the problems patients face in ostomy care and to determine how to improve these problems by an app. Method: A qualitative study using six focus group interviews was conducted between March and April 2020. Patients with a stoma, representatives of patient associations and stoma-related healthcare providers participated to provide insights. A thematic content analysis method was used to analyse the transcripts. Results: Participants indicated that perioperative information could be improved, information should be applicable for all patients and the amount of stoma materials to be overwhelming. Moreover, the contact with fellow peers could be utilised more and it was unclear which healthcare provider should be contacted. All participants expected an app would be beneficial. The app should provide reliable and up-to-date information which is presented in a visually attractive manner, and facilitate peer contact in which patients can support each other. Conclusion: Adequate self-care and coping is essential for patients’ quality of life. A personalised, mobile app may be promising to overcome some of the problems related to adequate self-provision of stoma care at home, improving self-efficacy and overall well-being.
