IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i21-22p3913-3919.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consciousness assessment: A questionnaire of current neuroscience nursing practice in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Vink
  • Zeliha Tulek
  • Katrin Gillis
  • Ann‐Cathrin Jönsson
  • Jovanca Buhagiar
  • Cath Waterhouse
  • Ingrid Poulsen

Abstract

Aims and objectives To study practice in consciousness assessment among neuroscience nurses in Europe. Background Over the years, several instruments have been developed to assess the level of consciousness for patients with brain injury. It is unclear which instrument is being used by nurses in Europe and how they are trained to use these tools adequately. Design/methods A cross‐sectional questionnaire, created by the European Association of Neuroscience Nurses Research Committee, was sent to neuroscience nurses in 13 European countries. The countries participated in 2016 with a response period of 3 months for each country. Results A total of 331 questionnaires were completed by nurses in 11 different countries. Assessment of consciousness was part of the daily routine for a majority of bedside nurses (95%), with an estimated median frequency of six times per shift. The majority uses a standardised instrument, and the Glasgow Coma Scale is the most common. Most participants assess consciousness primarily for clinical decision‐making and report both total scores and subscores. The majority was formally trained or educated in use of the instrument, but methods of training were divers. Besides the estimated frequency of assessments and training, no significant difference was found between bedside nurses and other nurse positions, educational level or kind of institution. Conclusion Our study shows that consciousness assessment is part of the daily routine for most nurses working in neurology/neurosurgery/neurorehabilitation wards in Europe. The greatest variation existed in training methods for the use of the instruments, and we recommend standardised practice in the use of assessment scales. Relevance to clinical practice In clinical practice, both managers and staff nurses should focus on formalised training in the use of assessment tools, to ensure reliability and reproducibility. This may also increase the professionalism in the neuroscience nurses’ role and performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Vink & Zeliha Tulek & Katrin Gillis & Ann‐Cathrin Jönsson & Jovanca Buhagiar & Cath Waterhouse & Ingrid Poulsen, 2018. "Consciousness assessment: A questionnaire of current neuroscience nursing practice in Europe," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(21-22), pages 3913-3919, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:21-22:p:3913-3919
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14614
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary E Braine & Neal Cook, 2017. "The Glasgow Coma Scale and evidence‐informed practice: a critical review of where we are and where we need to be," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1-2), pages 280-293, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ki Sook Bae & Young Sook Roh, 2020. "Training needs analysis of Korean nurses' neurological assessment competency," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 99-107, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:21-22:p:3913-3919. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.