Reviews and summaries of research related to AACN 1980 research priorities: clinical topics

1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 413-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Riegel ◽  
JL Banasik ◽  
J Barnsteiner ◽  
P Beecroft ◽  
L Kern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
American Association ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
Included Review ◽  
Doctoral Dissertations

This article reviews and summarizes the research conducted following publication of the 1980s American Association of Critical-Care Nurses' clinical research priorities. Original research conducted on the clinical priority topics between 1981 and 1991 was included. Review articles, doctoral dissertations, theses and abstracts were excluded unless judged to provide important information on the topic. Following the statement of each priority, progress in the area is summarized. Limitations and measurement issues are discussed as appropriate. Recommendations for future research are provided, and progress in the area is summarized.

Reviews and summaries of research related to AACN 1980 research priorities: contextual topics

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 260-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Riegel ◽  
JL Banasik ◽  
J Barnsteiner ◽  
P Beecroft ◽  
L Kern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
American Association ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Included Review ◽  
Doctoral Dissertations

This article reviews and summarizes the research conducted following publication of the 1980s American Association of Critical-Care Nurses' contextual research priorities. Reports of original research conducted on the contextual priority topics between 1981 and 1991 were included. Review articles, doctoral dissertations, theses, and abstracts were excluded unless judged to provide important information on the topic. Following the statement of each priority, progress in the area is summarized. Limitations and measurement issues are discussed as appropriate. Recommendations for future research are provided, and progress in the area is summarized.

Compassion Fatigue and the Healthy Work Environment

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesly Kelly ◽  
Michael Todd
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Compassion Fatigue ◽  
American Association ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Compassion Satisfaction ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Healthy Work Environment ◽  
Healthy Work

Background:Burnout is a concern for critical care nurses in high-intensity environments. Studies have highlighted the importance of a healthy work environment in promoting optimal nurse and patient outcomes, but research examining the relationship between a healthy work environment and burnout is limited.Objective:To examine how healthy work environment components relate to compassion fatigue (eg, burnout, secondary trauma) and compassion satisfaction.Methods:Nurses (n = 105) in 3 intensive care units at an academic medical center completed a survey including the Professional Quality of Life and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses’ Healthy Work Environment standards.Results:Regression models using each Healthy Work Environment component to predict each outcome, adjusting for background variables, showed that the 5 Healthy Work Environment components predicted burnout and that meaningful recognition and authentic leadership predicted compassion satisfaction.Conclusions:Findings on associations between healthy work environment standards and burnout suggest the potential importance of implementing the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses’ Healthy Work Environment standards as a mechanism for decreasing burnout.

Family Presence During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Invasive Procedures: Practices of Critical Care and Emergency Nurses

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan L. MacLean ◽  
Cathie E. Guzzetta ◽  
Cheri White ◽  
Dorrie Fontaine ◽  
Dezra J. Eichhorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
American Association ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Invasive Procedures ◽  
Emergency Nurses ◽  
Family Presence ◽  
Do So

• Background Increasingly, patients’ families are remaining with them during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures, but this practice remains controversial and little is known about the practices of critical care and emergency nurses related to family presence. • Objective To identify the policies, preferences, and practices of critical care and emergency nurses for having patients’ families present during resuscitation and invasive procedures. • Methods A 30-item survey was mailed to a random sample of 1500 members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses and 1500 members of the Emergency Nurses Association. • Results Among the 984 respondents, 5% worked on units with written policies allowing family presence during both resuscitation and invasive procedures and 45% and 51%, respectively, worked on units that allowed it without written policies during resuscitation or during invasive procedures. Some respondents preferred written policies allowing family presence (37% for resuscitation, 35% for invasive procedures), whereas others preferred unwritten policies allowing it (39% for resuscitation, 41% for invasive procedures). Many respondents had taken family members to the bedside (36% for resuscitation, 44% for invasive procedure) or would do so in the future (21% for resuscitation, 18% for invasive procedures), and family members often asked to be present (31% for resuscitation, 61% for invasive procedures). • Conclusions Nearly all respondents have no written policies for family presence yet most have done (or would do) it, prefer it be allowed, and are confronted with requests from family members to be present. Written policies or guidelines for family presence during resuscitation and invasive procedures are recommended.

Activities Performed by Acute and Critical Care Advanced Practice Nurses: American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Study of Practice

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Becker ◽  
Roberta Kaplow ◽  
Patricia M. Muenzen ◽  
Carol Hartigan
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
American Association ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Clinical Nurse ◽  
Care Nurse ◽  
Clinical Nurse Specialists

• Background Accreditation standards for certification programs require use of a testing mechanism that is job-related and based on the knowledge and skills needed to function in the discipline. • Objectives To describe critical care advanced practice by revising descriptors to encompass the work of both acute care nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists and to explore differences in the practice of clinical nurse specialists and acute care nurse practitioners. • Methods A national task force of subject matter experts was appointed to create a comprehensive delineation of the work of critical care nurses. A survey was designed to collect validation data on 65 advanced practice activities, organized by the 8 nurse competencies of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Synergy Model for Patient Care, and an experience inventory. Activities were rated on how critical they were to optimizing patients’ outcomes, how often they were performed, and toward which sphere of influence they were directed. How much time nurses devoted to specific care problems was analyzed. Frequency ratings were compared between clinical nurse specialists and acute care nurse practitioners. • Results Both groups of nurses encountered all items on the experience inventory. Clinical nurse specialists were more experienced than acute care nurse practitioners. The largest difference was that clinical nurse specialists rated as more critical activities involving clinical judgment and clinical inquiry whereas acute care nurse practitioners focused primarily on clinical judgment. • Conclusions Certification initiatives should reflect differences between clinical nurse specialists and acute care nurse practitioners.

Safeguarding the Patient and the Profession: The Value of Critical Care Nurse Certification

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
American Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Specialized Knowledge ◽  
Care Nurse ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
The Public

Today’s critically ill patients require heightened vigilance and extraordinarily intricate care. As skilled and responsible health professionals, the 403 000 critical care nurses in the United States must acquire the specialized knowledge and skills needed to provide this care and demonstrate their competence to the public, their employers, and their profession. Recognizing that nurses can validate specialty competence through certification, this white paper from the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses and the AACN Certification Corporation puts forth a call to action for all who can influence and will benefit from certified nurses’ contribution to patient care.

Quality Improvement or Research—Deciding Which Road to Take

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 58-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M. Stausmire
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Care Nurse ◽  
Scarce Resources ◽  
Quality Patient Care ◽  
Broad Overview

Critical care nurses are constantly challenged to provide safe, high-quality patient care at a low cost with increasingly scarce resources while implementing the latest evidence-based practices into their own clinical practice. This article is the first in a 4-part series to provide a practical quality improvement guide for critical care nurses interested in implementing system process or performance improvement projects within their own units. Part 1 is designed to answer the question “What method is better for measuring real-world patient outcomes—quality improvement or clinical research?” A broad overview of the differences between quality improvement and clinical research is provided. A newly published checklist to differentiate between attributes of each process is introduced, and readers can test their own knowledge between quality improvement and research with a quick quiz of studies recently published in Critical Care Nurse.

Examining the Evidence to Guide Practice: Challenging Practice Habits

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Flynn Makic ◽  
Carol Rauen ◽  
Robin Watson ◽  
Ann Will Poteet
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
American Association ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Feeding Tube ◽  
Critical Care Nurses ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Health Care Workforce ◽  
In Infants And Children

Nurses are the largest segment of the nation’s health care workforce, which makes nurses vital to the translation of evidence-based practice as a practice norm. Critical care nurses are in a position to critically appraise and apply best evidence in daily practice to improve patients’ outcomes. It is important for critical care nurses to continually evaluate their current practice to ensure that they are applying the current best evidence rather than practicing on the basis of tradition. This article is based on a presentation at the 2013 National Teaching Institute of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Four practice interventions that are within the realm of nursing are critiqued on the basis of current best evidence: (1) turning critically ill patients, (2) sleep promotion in the intensive care unit, (3) feeding tube management in infants and children, and (4) prevention of venothromboembolism…again. The related beliefs, current evidence, and implications for practice associated with each topic are described.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document