Three-Questions-Method for Coping with the Emotional Burden of Nurses and Nursing Students during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Nurses and nursing students experienced an emotional burden while working during the COVID-19 outbreak. During the COVID-19 outbreak three questions for nurses working under these extreme circumstances were formulated: 1. What today's events do you remember? 2. How do you feel (physically and mentally)? 3. Do you have enough support? The purpose of this study was to obtain insight into whether nurses and nursing students perceive that the use of the three-questions-method contributes to effective coping with the emotional burden during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Focus group interviews were held with hospital nurses (n = 11) and nursing students with internships in mental health care (n = 2), hospital (n = 9), and homecare/nursing home care (n = 3) in September 2020 followed by twenty semi-structured interviews one year later. RESULTS: Almost all nurses and nursing students named factors that contributed to the emotional burden: fear, powerlessness, frustration, lack of knowledge about COVID-19, and pressure to pass the internship. Participants indicated that using the three-questions-method can help to effectively cope with the emotional burden during and after the COVID-19 outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Using the three-questions-method offers added value in coping with emotional burden and can be used in education as well as in practice.

Professionals' views on shared decision-making in severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into professionals' perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: A semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data. RESULTS: Four primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients' wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients' expectations of treatment and patients' preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.