4.3 Article

Factors Associated with School Nurses' Triage Competency in South Korea

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18168279

关键词

triage competency; school nurse; hospital nurse experience; school nurse experience

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea Grant - Korean Government [NRF- 2019R1A2C1006716]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the factors affecting triage competency of school nurses in South Korea. Results showed that factors such as work experience, location, and age influenced the triage competency of school nurses. Increasing experience was correlated with higher levels of triage competency.
This study examined the factors associated with triage competency among school nurses in South Korea. Using a convenience sampling method, 386 school nurses employed in elementary, middle, or high schools completed a cross-sectional survey that included a modified version of the Triage Competency Scale for emergency room nurses. Information regarding experience working in schools and hospitals, education level, school types, age, emergency nursing care certifications, school locations, and serious emergency experience at school was collected. Analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0, independent t-tests, analyses of variance, Spearman's correlation, and ordinal logistic regression. Triage competency was higher for school nurses who were employed in metropolitan regions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.63, p = 0.017) and had serious emergency experience (OR = 1.76, p = 0.008). As the participants' experience at schools or hospitals increased by one year, their triage competency score increased by 2% (OR = 1.02, p = 0.037) and 14% (OR = 1.14, p < 0.001), respectively. These findings could be used to develop policies and educational programs that promote school nurses' triage competency. Further, they suggest the importance of establishing an organizational support system to develop guidelines and a feedback system to improve school nurses' triage competency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据