The most important assessment of neurological examination in the clinical setting is assessing level of consciousness. The first neurological tool used to assess patients' level of consciousness was the Glasgow Coma Scale. It is considered as the most common less subjective gold standard coma assessment tool. The purpose of this study was to assess Jordanian nurses' knowledge about Glasgow Coma Scale. A non-experimental, descriptive cross-sectional correlational design was performed in four (3 private hospitals and 1 governmental) hospitals in Amman-Jordan. A self-reported questionnaire was answered by all (ICU, CCU, ER, and Telemetry) nurses who accepted to participate in the study. A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed to the participants with 90% response rate ending with 180 questionnaires in the final analysis. More than half of the sample (56.7%) was males. The participants were young nurses with mean age of 26.3±8 years. The total mean score for the whole sample was 7.38 ± 1.96. There was no relationship between experience, level of education, and training course and knowledge level. Nurses working in accredited hospitals and governmental hospitals recorded more level of knowledge than other hospitals. Emergency Room nurses recorded less level of knowledge than other area of practice. In conclusion, knowledge about Glasgow Coma Scale is a global problem. Jordanian nurses, as other nurses, have inadequate knowledge to perform Glasgow Coma Scale assessment. It is vital and necessary to include educational programs about Glasgow Coma Scale for nurses in all areas of practice and in the curricula of nursing colleges.

Introduction Using technology in the clinical setting where clinical alarms frequently occur, resulting in many false alarms, which is called alarm fatigue, alarm fatigue may increase nurses’ distraction, and that might negatively affect patient safety. Objective This study aimed to assess alarm fatigue among oncology nurses in Jordan. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional design was used in a non-profit specialized cancer center. A self-reported questionnaire was answered by nurses who participated in the study. Results A total of 222 questionnaires were analyzed with a more than 95% response rate. More than half of the sample (60.4%) were females. The participants were young nurses with a mean age of 25.18 ± 3.33 years. The total mean score of alarm fatigue was 31.62 ± 7.14 on a scale ranging from zero to 52. Post-hoc analysis showed that the palliative unit (25.73 ± 7.22) and emergency room (28.73 ± 6.62) had low scores of total mean alarm fatigue than remaining area of practice, such as the ICU (33.92 ± 6.99); p-value: .004. Conclusion Alarm fatigue is a global issue affecting many practice areas. An educational program is recommended for nurses to learn how to deal with alarm fatigue. In order to effectively manage alarms, nurses’ education and individual training are crucial.

<p>Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was introduced in 1974 as a tool to standardize the assessment of the level of consciousness of patients. Since it was introduced and used, GCS was considered to be the gold standard method for this purpose. Despite plenty of strengths GCS has (i.e. objectivity and easy communication on the results between the health care providers); GCS was considered to be ambiguous and confusing for nurses and infrequent users. Moreover, lack of knowledge and training about GCS might affect the accuracy and inter-rater reliability among health care professionals. The purpose of this paper was to simplify the use of GCS step by step for the beginner health care professionals.</p><p>This literature review was done by searching the following search engines: Pubmed, Midline, CINHAL, Ebsco host, and Google Scholar for the key words of: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), flow chart, nurses, and consciousness.Types of articles included: original research, literature review and meta-analysis. This review included the following sections:</p><p>1)     Definition of the related concepts</p><p>2)     The historical development of the GCS</p><p>3)     How to score the GCS</p><p>4)     Recommendation for clinical settings, and</p><p>5)     Conclusion</p>