混合型儿科重症监护病房内儿科神经重症监护病房模式的可持续性及其对护理情绪的影响。

Nathan Chang, May Casazza, Amelia Sperber, Leslie Ciraulo, Jennifer Rodriguez, Katherine Marquiss, Lisa D'Anjou, Prathyusha Teeyagura, Anne-Laure Chaillou, Andrew Palmquist, Lindsey Rasmussen
{"title":"混合型儿科重症监护病房内儿科神经重症监护病房模式的可持续性及其对护理情绪的影响。","authors":"Nathan Chang, May Casazza, Amelia Sperber, Leslie Ciraulo, Jennifer Rodriguez, Katherine Marquiss, Lisa D'Anjou, Prathyusha Teeyagura, Anne-Laure Chaillou, Andrew Palmquist, Lindsey Rasmussen","doi":"10.1097/JNN.0000000000000766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>BACKGROUND: Pediatric neurocritical care (PNCC) and pediatric neurointensive care units (neuro-PICU) are growing fields. Although some institutions have established independent neuro-PICUs meeting most Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) standards for neurocritical care units, many centers lack the resources to do so. We describe an alternative neuro-PICU model as a designated unit within a mixed pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and its effects on nursing sentiment. METHODS: We established a 6-bed neuro-PICU within a 36-bed noncardiac PICU. Charge nurses were tasked with admitting PNCC patients into these beds. For nursing expertise, we used a core group of 12 PNCC specialty nurses and instituted PNCC nursing education to PICU nurses. We observed the number of PNCC patients admitted to neuro-PICU beds and surveyed charge nurses to identify barriers to assigning patients. We surveyed PICU nursing staff to explore sentiment regarding PNCC before and after establishing the neuro-PICU. Nursing criteria were compared with NCS standards. RESULTS: In the 40-month period, our PICU saw 2060 PNCC admissions. Overall, occupied neuro-PICU beds housed PNCC patients 74.1% of the time. The biggest barriers to patient placement were too many competing placement requests, not enough neuro-PICU beds when specialty census was high, and difficulty assigning one nurse to two PNCC patients. In surveys after establishing the neuro-PICU, compared to before, experienced nurses reported being more interested in obtaining Emergency Neurological Life Support certification (94.2% vs 80.6%, P = .0495), and inexperienced nurses reported being more familiar with PNCC clinical pathways (53.5% vs 31.7%, P = .0263). Most NCS criteria related to nursing organization were met. CONCLUSIONS: Focused neuro-PICUs should be developed to complement advances in the field of PNCC. Alternative neuro-PICU models are possible and can increase nursing interest in further education and awareness of clinical pathways, but barriers exist that require institutional commitment to nursing development to sustain the delivery of specialized care to this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":94240,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sustainability of a Pediatric Neurointensive Care Unit Model Within a Mixed Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Its Effect on Nursing Sentiment.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Chang, May Casazza, Amelia Sperber, Leslie Ciraulo, Jennifer Rodriguez, Katherine Marquiss, Lisa D'Anjou, Prathyusha Teeyagura, Anne-Laure Chaillou, Andrew Palmquist, Lindsey Rasmussen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JNN.0000000000000766\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>BACKGROUND: Pediatric neurocritical care (PNCC) and pediatric neurointensive care units (neuro-PICU) are growing fields. Although some institutions have established independent neuro-PICUs meeting most Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) standards for neurocritical care units, many centers lack the resources to do so. We describe an alternative neuro-PICU model as a designated unit within a mixed pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and its effects on nursing sentiment. METHODS: We established a 6-bed neuro-PICU within a 36-bed noncardiac PICU. Charge nurses were tasked with admitting PNCC patients into these beds. For nursing expertise, we used a core group of 12 PNCC specialty nurses and instituted PNCC nursing education to PICU nurses. We observed the number of PNCC patients admitted to neuro-PICU beds and surveyed charge nurses to identify barriers to assigning patients. We surveyed PICU nursing staff to explore sentiment regarding PNCC before and after establishing the neuro-PICU. Nursing criteria were compared with NCS standards. RESULTS: In the 40-month period, our PICU saw 2060 PNCC admissions. Overall, occupied neuro-PICU beds housed PNCC patients 74.1% of the time. The biggest barriers to patient placement were too many competing placement requests, not enough neuro-PICU beds when specialty census was high, and difficulty assigning one nurse to two PNCC patients. In surveys after establishing the neuro-PICU, compared to before, experienced nurses reported being more interested in obtaining Emergency Neurological Life Support certification (94.2% vs 80.6%, P = .0495), and inexperienced nurses reported being more familiar with PNCC clinical pathways (53.5% vs 31.7%, P = .0263). Most NCS criteria related to nursing organization were met. CONCLUSIONS: Focused neuro-PICUs should be developed to complement advances in the field of PNCC. Alternative neuro-PICU models are possible and can increase nursing interest in further education and awareness of clinical pathways, but barriers exist that require institutional commitment to nursing development to sustain the delivery of specialized care to this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000766\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000766","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:背景:儿科神经重症监护(PNCC)和儿科神经重症监护病房(neuro-PICU)是一个不断发展的领域。尽管一些机构已经建立了独立的神经重症监护病房(neuro-PICU),符合神经重症监护协会(NCS)关于神经重症监护病房的大多数标准,但许多中心缺乏这样做的资源。我们描述了作为混合儿科重症监护病房(PICU)内指定病房的另一种神经重症监护病房模式及其对护理情感的影响。方法:我们在一个拥有 36 张床位的非心脏重症监护病房内设立了一个拥有 6 张床位的神经重症监护病房。责任护士的任务是将 PNCC 患者收治到这些病床上。在护理专业知识方面,我们使用了一个由 12 名 PNCC 专科护士组成的核心小组,并对 PICU 护士开展了 PNCC 护理教育。我们观察了神经重症监护病房病床收治的 PNCC 患者人数,并对责任护士进行了调查,以确定分配患者时遇到的障碍。我们对 PICU 护理人员进行了调查,以了解他们在神经重症监护病房成立前后对 PNCC 的看法。护理标准与 NCS 标准进行了比较。结果:在 40 个月的时间里,我们的 PICU 共收治了 2060 名 PNCC 患者。总体而言,神经重症监护病房 74.1% 的床位都安置了 PNCC 患者。安置病人的最大障碍是有太多相互竞争的安置请求,在专科人数较多时没有足够的神经重症监护病房床位,以及很难为两名 PNCC 病人指派一名护士。在神经重症监护室成立后进行的调查中,与成立前相比,有经验的护士表示更有兴趣获得紧急神经生命支持认证(94.2% vs 80.6%,P = .0495),而无经验的护士表示更熟悉 PNCC 临床路径(53.5% vs 31.7%,P = .0263)。符合大多数与护理组织相关的 NCS 标准。结论:应发展重点神经重症监护病房,以补充 PNCC 领域的进展。神经重症监护病房的替代模式是可行的,可以提高护理人员对进一步教育的兴趣和对临床路径的认识,但也存在一些障碍,需要机构对护理发展做出承诺,以持续为这一人群提供专业护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sustainability of a Pediatric Neurointensive Care Unit Model Within a Mixed Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Its Effect on Nursing Sentiment.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Pediatric neurocritical care (PNCC) and pediatric neurointensive care units (neuro-PICU) are growing fields. Although some institutions have established independent neuro-PICUs meeting most Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) standards for neurocritical care units, many centers lack the resources to do so. We describe an alternative neuro-PICU model as a designated unit within a mixed pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and its effects on nursing sentiment. METHODS: We established a 6-bed neuro-PICU within a 36-bed noncardiac PICU. Charge nurses were tasked with admitting PNCC patients into these beds. For nursing expertise, we used a core group of 12 PNCC specialty nurses and instituted PNCC nursing education to PICU nurses. We observed the number of PNCC patients admitted to neuro-PICU beds and surveyed charge nurses to identify barriers to assigning patients. We surveyed PICU nursing staff to explore sentiment regarding PNCC before and after establishing the neuro-PICU. Nursing criteria were compared with NCS standards. RESULTS: In the 40-month period, our PICU saw 2060 PNCC admissions. Overall, occupied neuro-PICU beds housed PNCC patients 74.1% of the time. The biggest barriers to patient placement were too many competing placement requests, not enough neuro-PICU beds when specialty census was high, and difficulty assigning one nurse to two PNCC patients. In surveys after establishing the neuro-PICU, compared to before, experienced nurses reported being more interested in obtaining Emergency Neurological Life Support certification (94.2% vs 80.6%, P = .0495), and inexperienced nurses reported being more familiar with PNCC clinical pathways (53.5% vs 31.7%, P = .0263). Most NCS criteria related to nursing organization were met. CONCLUSIONS: Focused neuro-PICUs should be developed to complement advances in the field of PNCC. Alternative neuro-PICU models are possible and can increase nursing interest in further education and awareness of clinical pathways, but barriers exist that require institutional commitment to nursing development to sustain the delivery of specialized care to this population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信