No abstract

Context Error reporting is considered one of the most important mediating factors for patient safety (PS). However, reporting errors can be challenging for health care students. Objectives The aims of the study were: (i) to describe nursing students’ opportunity to report errors, near misses or PS issues that emerged during their clinical learning experience; and (ii) to explore associated factors of the process of reporting itself. Methods A national survey was conducted on 9607 (91.7%) undergraduate nursing students. The endpoint was to have reported PS issues in the last clinical learning experience (from 0 ‘never’ to 3 ‘always’). Explanatory variables were set individual, nursing programme and regional levels. Results A total of 4004 (41.7%) nursing students reported PS issues from ‘never/rarely’ to ‘sometimes’. In the multi‐level analysis, factors increasing the likelihood of reporting events affecting PS have been mainly at the nursing programme level: specifically, higher learning opportunities (odds ratio [OR] = 3.040; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.667–3.466), self‐directed learning opportunities (OR = 1.491; 95% CI, 1.364–1.630), safety and nursing care quality (OR = 1.411; 95% CI, 1.250–1.594) and quality of tutorial strategies OR = 1.251; 95% CI, 1.113–1.406). By contrast, being supervised by a nurse teacher (OR = 0.523; 95% CI, 0.359–0.761) prevented the disclosure of PS issues compared with being supervised by a clinical nurse. Students attending their nursing programmes in some Italian regions showed a higher likelihood (OR from 1.346 to 2.938) of reporting PS issues compared with those undertaking their education in other regions. Conclusions Nursing students continue to be reticent to report PS issues. Given that they represent the largest generation of future health care workers, their education regarding PS should be continuously monitored and improved; moreover, strategies aimed at developing a non‐blaming culture should be designed and implemented both at the clinical learning setting and regional levels.

No abstract

BackgroundPatients with acute stroke are particularly vulnerable to delirium episodes. Although delirium detection is important, no evidence-based recommendations have been established to date on how these patients should be routinely screened for delirium or which tool should be used for this purpose in this population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify delirium screening tools for patients with acute stroke and to summarise their accuracy.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of Medline, CINAHL and Scopus databases was performed to include: (a) diagnostic test accuracy studies; (b) evaluating tools detecting delirium among patients with acute stroke; (c) written in English; (d) published up to September 2018. The included studies were assessed in their quality by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.ResultsA total of four studies have been performed to date in the field with a variable quality for the methodology used and documentation of the accuracy of mainly two tools, as (1) the 4-Assessment Test for delirium (4AT), reporting a range of sensitivity from 90.2 to 100% and a specificity from 64.5 to 86%; and (2) the Confusion Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) showing a sensitivity of 76% (95% Confidence of Interval [CI] 55–91) and a specificity of 98% (95%CI 93–100). Other tools have been studied as: The Abbreviated Mental Test-10, the Abbreviated Mental Test short form, the Clock Drawing Test, the Cognitive Examination derived from the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale. Moreover, the use of a single question—namely, ‘Does this patient have cognitive issues?’ as answered by the multidisciplinary team—has been subjected to a validation process.ConclusionsTo date a few primary studies have been published to test the accuracy of tools in their ability to detect post-stroke delirium; among those available, the 4AT and the CAM-ICU tools have been mostly studied. Research has just started to add evidence to the challenge of detecting and usefully assessing newly-acquired delirium among stroke patients: therefore, more studies are needed to improve the knowledge and allow a robust selection of the most useful tool to use in this population.

No abstract