Critical care nurse · 2015
Implementation of a Progressive Mobilization Program in a Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Messer April, Comer Linda, Forst Steve
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current literature supports implementation of progressive mobility protocols in intensive care units. Education can help nurses overcome barriers to mobility and increase knowledge about the positive effects of mobility.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of education for a progressive mobilization program for intensive care nurses on knowledge and performance.
METHODS: A pretest-posttest evaluation was conducted for 41 nurses, and a chart review was performed before and after implementation of the educational intervention to evaluate changes in knowledge and mobilization.
RESULTS: Scores after the educational intervention were significantly higher than scores before the intervention (t = 2.02; P < .001). Overall mobilization (P = .04) and dangling (P = .01) increased significantly after the education. No significant increases occurred in ambulating or getting patients up to a chair.
CONCLUSIONS: Mobilization education was effective and increased nurses' knowledge about the benefits of mobility for critically ill patients. The educational program also affected how nurses performed mobility interventions. Although provision of education had positive effects on patients' mobility, leadership and coaching are still important components in implementing change.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of education for a progressive mobilization program for intensive care nurses on knowledge and performance.
METHODS: A pretest-posttest evaluation was conducted for 41 nurses, and a chart review was performed before and after implementation of the educational intervention to evaluate changes in knowledge and mobilization.
RESULTS: Scores after the educational intervention were significantly higher than scores before the intervention (t = 2.02; P < .001). Overall mobilization (P = .04) and dangling (P = .01) increased significantly after the education. No significant increases occurred in ambulating or getting patients up to a chair.
CONCLUSIONS: Mobilization education was effective and increased nurses' knowledge about the benefits of mobility for critically ill patients. The educational program also affected how nurses performed mobility interventions. Although provision of education had positive effects on patients' mobility, leadership and coaching are still important components in implementing change.