Purpose: Resuscitation quality and pace depend on effective team coordination, which can be facilitated by adequate leadership. Our primary aim was to assess the influence of trauma team leader experience on resuscitation pace. Second, we investigated the influence of injury severity on resuscitation pace. Methods: The trauma team leaders were identified (Staff trauma surgeon vs Fellow trauma surgeon) and classified from video analysis during a 1-week period. Resuscitations were assessed for time to the treatment plan, total resuscitation time, and procedure time. Furthermore, patient and resuscitation characteristics were assessed and compared: age, gender, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale < 9, and the number (and duration) of surgical procedures during initial resuscitation. Correlations between total resuscitation time, Injury Severity Score, and time to treatment plan were calculated. Results: After adjustment for the time needed for procedures, the time to treatment plan and total resuscitation time was significantly shorter in resuscitations led by a Staff trauma surgeon compared to a Fellow trauma surgeon (median 648 s (IQR 472-813) vs 852 s (IQR 694-1256); p 0.01 resp. median 1280 s (IQR 979-1494) vs 1535 s (IQR 1247-1864), p 0.04). Surgical procedures were only performed during resuscitations led by Staff trauma surgeons (4 thorax drains, 1 endotracheal intubation, 1 closed fracture reduction). Moreover, a significant negative correlation (r: - 0.698, p < 0.01) between Injury Severity Score and resuscitation time was found. Conclusion: Experienced trauma team leaders may positively influence the pace of the resuscitation. Moreover, we found that the resuscitation pace increases when the patient is more severely injured.
LINK
BackgroundWorking in the perioperative context is complex and challenging. The continual evaluation in this environment underscores the need for adaptability to technological advancements, and requires substantial allocation of resources for training and education. This study aimed to explore personality characteristics of nurse anesthetists and surgical nurses that are instrumental for sustainable employability in technologically advanced environment.MethodsExploratory, cross-sectional survey study including nurse anesthetists and surgical nurses, both certified and in training, and a sample of the normative Dutch population. Personality characteristics were identified with the Big Five Inventory, which consisted of 60 items answered on a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).ResultsSpecific personality traits were found for nurse anesthetists and surgical nurses when compared to the normative Dutch population. Traits of both nurse anesthetists and surgical nurses differed significantly on all domains of the Big Five Inventory, with the largest differences found within the dimension negative emotionally.ConclusionsThis study highlights the role of specific personality traits in maintaining employability within the rapidly evolving and technologically advanced landscape of healthcare. It emphasizes the relationship between individual traits and professional excellence, being crucial educational strategies for overall improvement in healthcare.
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 pre-operative prophylaxis and post-operative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 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 (AMSTAR 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 pre-operative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on post-operative interventions (one review assessed both pre-and post-operative 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 post-operative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
MULTIFILE
