Purpose Worry is an intuitive sense that goes beyond logical reasoning and is valuable in situations where patients’ conditions are rapidly changing or when objective data may not fully capture the complexity of a patient’s situation. Nurse anesthetists’ subjective reasons for worry are quite vague as they are valued inconsistently and not accurately expressed. This study aimed to identify factors playing a role in the emergence of worry during anesthesia practice to clarify its concept. Design Mixed-methods design consisting of quantitative online surveys followed by qualitative focus group interviews including Dutch nurse anesthetists. Methods Both quantitative and qualitative thematic analyses were performed, followed by data and methodological triangulation to enhance the validity and credibility of findings and mitigate the presence of bias. Findings Surveys (N = 102) were analyzed, and 14 nurse anesthetists participated in the focus group interviews. A total of 89% of the survey respondents reported that at least once have had the feeling of worry, of which 92% use worry during clinical anesthesia practice. Worry was mentioned to be a vital element during anesthesia practice that makes it possible to take precautionary actions to change the anesthetic care plan in a changing situation or patient deterioration. Conclusions While a clear definition of worry could not be given, it is a valuable element of anesthesia practice as it serves as a catalyst for critical thinking, problem-solving, clinical reasoning, and decision-making. Use of the feeling of worry alongside technological systems to make an informed decision is crucial. Technology has significantly improved the ability of health care providers to detect and respond to patient deterioration promptly, but it is crucial for nurse anesthetists to use their feeling of worry or intuition alongside technological systems and evidence-based practice to ensure quick assessments or judgments based on experience, knowledge, and observations in clinical practice.
LINK
Background: Dental fear and uncooperative behavior can hinder dental treatment quality. Pediatric Procedural Sedation and Analgesia (PPSA) is used to facilitate treatment when the coping capacity is exceeded. Out-of-hospital PPSA has been associated with more adverse outcomes compared to when it is used in hospital-based settings. The updated Dutch PPSA guidelines have increased costs and raised concerns about the accessibility of specialized high-quality dental care for children in the Netherlands. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the updated 2017 guidelines on the occurrence rate of adverse events during PPSA in twelve Dutch dental clinics. Methods: The data of 25,872 children who were treated at twelve dental clinics between 1997 and 2019 were analyzed. A logistic two-level mixed-effects model was used to estimate the updated guidelines’ impacts on adverse events. Results: The OR of the occurrence rate of an adverse event adjusted for age, weight, and duration of treatment was 0.75 (95% CI 0.64–0.89) after the implementation of the updated guidelines. This outcome was significant with p = 0.001, indicating a protective effect. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that there was a significant reduction in adverse events after the implementation of the updated guideline and highlight the importance of adhering to evidence-based practices in out-of-hospital dental clinics.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models. Method: We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz’s value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations. Results: We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and patients’ skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients’ autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism]. Conclusion: SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients’ Self-Direction. Practice implications: This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients’ values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.
DOCUMENT
