Journal of emergency nursing : JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association
-
Comparative Study
An Exploration of Factors Influencing Ambulance and Emergency Nurses' Protocol Adherence in the Netherlands.
Adherence to ambulance and ED protocols is often suboptimal. Insight into factors influencing adherence is a requisite for improvement of adherence. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of factors that influence ambulance and emergency nurses' adherence to protocols. ⋯ Factors influencing ambulance and emergency nurses' protocol adherence could be assigned to individual, organizational, and external categories, as well as to protocol characteristics. To improve adherence, implementation strategies should be tailored to identified factors. Multifaceted implementation strategies will be needed to improve adherence.
-
Comparative Study
Alternative Methods to Central Venous Pressure for Assessing Volume Status in Critically Ill Patients.
Early goal-directed therapy increases survival in persons with sepsis but requires placement of a central line. We evaluate alternative methods to measuring central venous pressure (CVP) to assess volume status, including peripheral venous pressure (PVP) and stroke volume variation (SVV), which may facilitate nurse-driven resuscitation protocols. ⋯ PVP and SVV are moderately good predictors of CVP. Combining PVP and SVV and adding variables related to body position, movement, ventilation, and sleep/wake state further improves the predictive value of the model. The models illustrate the importance of standardizing patient position, minimizing movement, and placing intravenous lines proximally in the upper extremity or neck.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A Comparative Study of Two Nebulizers in the Emergency Department: Breath-Actuated Nebulizer and Handheld Nebulizer.
The breath-actuated nebulizer (BAN) and the handheld nebulizer (HHN) are 2 nebulizers used in the ED of Cooper University Hospital. The purpose of this study was to compare the nebulizers to identify which device resulted in a resolution of symptoms with fewer treatments. The primary hypothesis was that adult ED patients with a chief complaint of wheezing and dyspnea who were given nebulized treatments via the BAN would require less nebulizer treatments than those patients given nebulized treatments via HHN. In addition, the secondary purposes of the study was to determine if the BAN would have significantly higher peak expiratory flow measurements, lower Modified Borg Score, overall decreased respiratory rate, and lower heart rates compared to subjects receiving nebulized treatments via HHN. ⋯ This study demonstrated no clinical difference between the BAN and HHN in terms of respiratory rate, peak flow, perception of dyspnea, and number of treatments. It is possible that the longer treatment times account for the elevated pulse rate. The data suggests that the higher cost and the longer treatment time do not justify the use of the BAN in this setting. We recommend that these devices be tested with a larger sample size to further test the differences between these 2 devices.