Competence was already high in the team at the time of the first interview, but even improved by the time of the second interview. This is expressed by the resource-oriented patient-nurse partnership in the process of nursing, by team communication, as well as the heavily weighing discrepancy between knowledge and limited authorisation.

No abstract

No abstract

In the Clinic for Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, City Hospital Triemli (Zurich, Switzerland), a controlled observational study was carried out. The investigation aimed at comparing conventional and kinaesthetic nursing interventions with respect to the agility and body orientation of the patients, and with respect to their interaction with the nurses. The observations were limited to the interventions washing, positioning, and mobilizing and lasted 20 to 60 minutes. During this time, an experienced nurse, who did not belong to the nursing team, completed a checklist. The checklist items comprise operationalized criteria of the kinaesthetic concept by Hatch and Maietta, as well as two questions directed to the patients. Body motion and orientation were judged by a 12-items scale, identical for observations prior to and immediately after the nursing intervention. The interaction between patients and nurses was judged by means of a 10-items scale. Group 1 (13 patients) was observed during conservative nursing; group 2 (another 13 patients) was observed almost half a year later during kinaesthetic nursing. All observations were recorded with the same instrument. There was a general positive effect of the nursing interventions. Kinaesthetic nursing, however, only showed a trend towards better effects on the patients' agility, body orientation or interaction abilities in comparison to conventional nursing. The results are discussed with respect to a recently published study on objective measurement of kinaesthetic nursing effects. There is a certain discrepancy between the well-known positive valuation of kinaesthetic nursing by the nurses themselves and the measurable effects of the method. This discrepancy cannot simply be explained by sample size, type of measurement, or the nurses'experience with the method.

No abstract