Patient's learning needs and self-efficacy level after percutaneous coronary intervention: A descriptive study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Identify and compare learning needs, levels of self-efficacy and their association among inpatients and outpatients of a cardiac care unit with coronary heart disease who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a Swiss university hospital. BACKGROUND: After primary PCI, 42% of patients will suffer a recurrent ischemic cardiovascular event. Although adherence to therapeutic regimen contributes to prevent recurrence, patient adherence remains low. To strengthen it, learning needs and self-efficacy must be considered when developing effective therapeutic patient education (TPE). METHODS: Learning needs and self-efficacy were assessed using the Cardiac Patient Learning Needs Inventory (CPLNI) and the Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale among inpatients and outpatients. The STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies was used in reporting this study. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients participated in the study with a participation rate of 73.9%. The CPLNI median total score was significantly higher in inpatients than in outpatients: 4.23 (3.82, 4.64) versus 3.67 (3.33, 4.09), p < .001. In both units, participants declared that the most important need was related to 'anatomy and physiology' of the heart. Despite the high score, the least important need was about 'physical activity' for inpatients and 'miscellaneous information' for outpatients. No statistically significant differences were found among patients from both units regarding their self-efficacy level. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that after PCI, patients have high learning needs and moderate levels of self-efficacy that require addressing. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Patient's individual learning needs and self-efficacy level must be assessed prior/after PCI. A tailored TPE that considers individual learning needs and self-efficacy is recommended as a preventative measure to reduce recurrent ischemic cardiovascular events. Nurses can play a key role in this process. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: For feasibility reasons, patients and public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Which priority indicators to use to evaluate nursing care performance? A discussion paper.

AIMS: A discussion of an optimal set of indicators that can be used on a priority basis to assess the performance of nursing care. BACKGROUND: Recent advances in conceptualization of nursing care performance, exemplified by the Nursing Care Performance Framework, have revealed a broad universe of potentially nursing-sensitive indicators. Organizations now face the challenge of selecting, from this universe, a realistic subset of indicators that can form a balanced and common scorecard. DESIGN: Discussion paper drawing on a systematic assessment of selected performance indicators. DATA SOURCES: Previous works, based on systematic reviews of the literature published between 1990 - 2014, have contributed to the development of the Nursing Care Performance Framework. These works confirmed a robust set of indicators that capture the universe of content currently supported by the scientific literature and cover all major areas of nursing care performance. Building on these previous works, this study consisted in gathering the specific evidence supporting 25 selected indicators, focusing on systematic syntheses, meta-analyses and integrative reviews. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: This study has identified a set of 12 indicators that have sufficient breadth and depth to capture the whole spectrum of nursing care and that could be implemented on a priority basis. CONCLUSIONS: This study sets the stage for new initiatives aiming at filling current gaps in operationalization of nursing care performance. The next milestone is to set up the infrastructure required to collect data on these indicators and make effective use of them.