Early predictors of study success in a Dutch advanced nurse practitioner education program: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Study delay and attrition are major concerns in higher education. They cost time and effort, and threaten the availability of higher qualified professionals. Knowing early what factors contribute to delay and attrition may help prevent this. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine whether student characteristics, including a literature study report grade as a proxy of cognitive abilities, predicted study success in a dual advanced nurse practitioner education program. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study, including all 214 students who between September 2009 and September 2015 started the two-year program at the HAN University of Applied Sciences in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Study success was defined as having completed the program within the envisaged period. Variables examined included: age, gender, previous education (bachelor's degree or in-service training in nursing), work setting (general health, mental health, public health, or nursing home care), and literature study report grade (from 1 to 10). A hierarchical logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Most students were female (80%), had a bachelor's degree in nursing (67%), and were employed in a general healthcare setting (58%). Mean age was 40.5years (SD 9.4). One hundred thirty-seven students (64%) had study success. Being employed in a general healthcare setting (p≤0.004) and a higher literature study report grade (p=0.001) were associated with a higher study success rate. CONCLUSION: In advanced nurse practitioner education, study success rate seems associated with the student's cognitive abilities and work field. It might be worthwhile to identify students 'at risk of failure' before the start of the program and offer them extra support.

Facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study is to give insight into facilitators and barriers in pain management in trauma patients in the chain of emergency care in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A qualitative approach was adopted with the use of the implementation Model of Change of Clinical Practice. The chain of emergency care concerned prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Emergency Departments (EDs). We included two EMS ambulance services and three EDs and conducted five focus groups and 10 individual interviews. Stakeholders and managers of organisations were interviewed individually. Focus group participants were selected based on availability and general characteristics. Transcripts of the audio recordings and field notes were analysed in consecutive steps, based on thematic content analysis. Each step was independently performed by the researchers, and was discussed afterwards. We analysed differences and similarities supported by software for qualitative analysis MaxQDA. RESULTS: This study identified five concepts as facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care. We described the concepts of knowledge, attitude, professional communication, organisational aspects and patient input, illustrated with quotes from the interviews and focus group sessions. Furthermore, we identified whether the themes occurred in the chain of care. Knowledge deficits, attitude problems and patient input were similar for the EMS and ED settings, despite the different positions, backgrounds and educational levels of respondents. In the chain of care a lack of professional communication and organisational feedback occurred as new themes, and were specifically related to the organisational structure of the prehospital EMS and EDs. CONCLUSION: Identified organisational aspects stressed the importance of organisational embedding of improvement of pain management. However, change of clinical practice requires a comprehensive approach focused at all five concepts. We think a shift in attitudes is needed, together with constant surveillance and feedback to emergency care providers. Implementation efforts need to be aimed at the identified barriers and facilitators, tailored to the chain of emergency care and the multi-professional group of emergency care providers.

Prevalence and relief of pain in trauma patients in emergency medical services.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to give insight in the prevalence of pain, and the (effect of) pain management according to the national emergency medical services analgesia protocol in trauma patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: The retrospective document study included adult and alert trauma patients. Data collection concerned patient characteristics, prevalence of pain, and the (effect of) pain management. Actual pain management was compared with the national emergency medical services analgesia protocol for paramedics. Pain relief was defined as a decrease on the Numeric Rating Scale. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and seven trauma patients were included. A report on pain was missing in 28% of the patients (n=393), 2% of the patients (n=34) reported no pain, and the prevalence of pain was reported by 70% of the patients (n=980). Of the patients in pain, 31% (n=311) had a systematic pain assessment (Numeric Rating Scale) at the scene of accident and the median pain score was 6 (interquartile range=3 to 8). Pharmacological pain treatment was administered to 42% of the patients in pain (n=410), and consisted mainly of intravenous fentanyl. Nonpharmacological pain treatments were cleaning of wounds (n=189), and application of splints or immobilizing bandages (n=130). Pain relief on arrival in the emergency department could only be evaluated in 15% of the patients in pain (n=149). DISCUSSION: Prevalence of pain in trauma was high, and without consistent "objective" reporting of pain it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management, despite the adherence to clinical practice guideline or protocol. Paramedics need to elicit and report validated pain measurements.

Pain prevalence and pain relief in trauma patients in the Accident & Emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain in the A&E department (ED) has been described as a problem, however insight into the problem for trauma patients is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the prevalence of pain, the pain intensity and the effect of conventional pain treatment in trauma patients in the ED. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of 450 trauma patients, pain was measured on admission and at discharge, using standardized and validated pain instruments. RESULTS: The prevalence of pain was high, both on admission (91%) and at discharge (86%). Two thirds of the trauma patients reported moderate or severe pain at discharge. Few patients received pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relieving treatment during their stay in the ED. Pain decreased in 37% of the patients, did not change at all in 46%, or had increased in 17% of the patients at discharge from the ED. The most effective pain treatment given was a combination of injury treatment and supplementary pharmacological interventions, however this treatment was given to a small group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Acute pain in trauma patients is a significant problem in the ED's. Pain itself does not seem to be treated systematically and sufficiently, anywhere in the cycle of injury treatment in the ED.