ABSTRACT
Numerous studies have found that organizational features connected with the work environment of nurses have a significant influence on patients' safety. The aim of this research was to capture nurses' opinions about patients' safety and discern relationships with work environment characteristics. This cross-sectional study surveyed 1825 nurses. The research used questionnaire consisting of four parts: (1) covered The Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI); (2) assessed the quality of nursing care and care safety; (3) contained information on the most recent duty served by the nurses and (4) captured social and demographic data of participants. The research identified strong association between patient safety assessment and work environment of nurses in the aspect of employment adequacy, cooperation between nurses and doctors, support for nurses from the managing staff, the possibility to participate in the management as well as professional promotion of nurses employed in the hospital (p < 0.001). Nurses rated patient safety higher when responsible for a smaller number of patients. Work environment factors such as proper staffing, good cooperation with doctors, support from the management, as well as professional independence are significantly related to nurses' assessment of patients' safety.
Subject(s)
Nursing Staff, Hospital , Patient Safety , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Poland , Surveys and Questionnaires , WorkplaceABSTRACT
Critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) determines rigor, quality, and whether the findings are applicable to the populations served in clinical practices. The authors conducted a rigorous analysis using the RCT Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklist for the two RCTs Pfizer (New York, NY) and Moderna (Cambridge, MA) conducted and the reporting of these RCTs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. The goals for this analysis were twofold: (1) enable health care providers to understand the methods and outcomes of these RCTs, and (2) enable health care providers and community leaders to become champions for the vaccines to reduce vaccine hesitancy among all populations. The analysis is presented using each of the 11 questions on the CASP tool while comparing the methodology and results for each vaccine. Most CASP tool items were positive or yes for both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs. Items that were not scored as yes are discussed. The analysis outcomes revealed that both RCTs were rigorously conducted and provide an assurance to all health care providers and the public of the safety and efficacy of both vaccines to impact the astounding morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 disease. The authors believed that the analysis was an essential component of the distribution process to develop plans and communication strategies to reduce potential vaccine hesitancy and resistance.