Background Hospitalized patients encounter stressors that impact their experience and recovery. There is a need for theoretically based, empirically supported nursing interventions to create a therapeutic and healing environment that decrease stress and improve patients’ experiences. Purpose To determine whether pet therapy interventions improve physiological, behavioral and mood outcomes and experiences of hospitalized patients. Methods A single group pre- post quasi-experimental design with mixed methods was used in 59 hospitalized patients. Paired t-tests were used to evaluate changes from baseline following a pet therapy intervention. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. . Results Compared with baseline, patients had significant decreases in pain, respiratory rate and negative mood state and a significant increase in perceived energy level. Quantitative and qualitative findings provide support for decreased tension/anxiety and fatigue/inertia and improved overall mood. Conclusions Pet therapy is a low-tech, low-cost therapy that improved mood and was meaningful to hospitalized patients.

Reporting of laboratory critical values has become an issue of national attention as illustrated by recent guidelines described in the National Patient Safety Goals of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Herein, we report the results of an analysis of 37,503 consecutive laboratory critical values at our institution, a large urban academic medical center. We evaluated critical value reporting by test, laboratory specialty, patient type, clinical care area, time of day, and critical value limits. Factors leading to delays in critical value reporting are identified, and we describe approaches to improving this important operational and patient safety issue.

Reporting of laboratory critical values has become an issue of national attention as illustrated by recent guidelines described in the National Patient Safety Goals of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Herein, we report the results of an analysis of 37,503 consecutive laboratory critical values at our institution, a large urban academic medical center. We evaluated critical value reporting by test, laboratory specialty, patient type, clinical care area, time of day, and critical value limits. Factors leading to delays in critical value reporting are identified, and we describe approaches to improving this important operational and patient safety issue.

No abstract

No abstract