Current trends in preoperative education are: scheduling education early; increased frequency of message exposure through several interventions and/or reinforcements; content frequently addressing postoperative management; the measurement of outcomes such as patients' cognitive, experiential and biophysiological aspects. Both the clinical and research implications that emerged from the findings are discussed.

To explore the incidence of intraoperative pressure sores, the associated risk factors and the preventive strategies adopted by nurses, we adopted a longitudinal study in a 900-bed teaching hospital with multiple operating theatres, located in the North of Italy. Patients who underwent major surgery were evaluated four times: at the moment of operating theatre admission, at operating theatre discharge, and on their third and sixth postoperative day. Of the patients included (n = 102) who had an average age of 62.3 years (range 20-87), 12.7% (13/102) developed a pressure ulcer in the operating theatre; 46.1% (6/13) of these ulcers were still present on the third postoperative day. Some health conditions (diabetes mellitus, cardiac diseases) and intra-operative factors (lying on the operating table for more than 6.15 hours, intraoperative hypothermia) are associated with the occurrence of pressure sores.

No abstract

No abstract

Aims: An available strategy to counteract academic failure is the development and implementation of student academic self-efficacy; however, to date, there are no instruments measuring it. The aim of this study was to develop and psychometrically test an academic nurse self-efficacy scale. Design: A longitudinal study design was used in accordance with Consensus-basedStandards for the Selection of health status Measurement Instruments guidelines. Methods:A convenience sample of 1,129 nursing students attending the first year of the course were involved. The data collection began in 2014 and went on for 3 years.Data were collected at the beginning of the first (T0), at the end of the first (T1), at the end of the second (T2), and at the end of the third (T3) year. The academic nurse self-efficacy scale was evaluated for content and face validity, for construct validity with explorative, confirmative factor analysis and hypothesis testing and for reliability. The standard error and the smallest detectable difference were also evaluated.Results: Scree plot analysis suggested a four-factor solution and confirmative factor analysis model reached a good fit. We verified the first hypothesis, partially the second and not the third. The dimensions show a Cronbach's α 0.72-0.83. The smallest detectable difference was 26%. Conclusions:The academic nurse self-efficacy scale had good validity and reliability and should be considered for nursing students. Impact: These findings may have an impact on universities, mainly in nursing degree programmes because nurse educators can identify nursing students with low academic self-efficacy and help them in their academic duties. Indirectly, academic self-efficacy monitoring can be used for evaluating the effect of different teaching strategies or mentorship support over time. K E Y W O R D S academic performance, academic success, education nursing, educational measurement, instrument development, nurses, nursing, nursing graduate, self-efficacy | 399 BULFONE Et aL.