4.5 Article

Hospital practitioner views on the benefits of continence education and best ways to provide training

期刊

NURSING OPEN
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 3305-3313

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1582

关键词

catheters; continence care; education; hospital healthcare practitioner; incontinence; nurses; pads; product; training

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to understand the experiences and perspectives of practitioners on continence training, and how to improve its implementation and engagement. Qualitative interviews were conducted with nursing, medical, and allied health practitioners in three hospitals. Data analysis was done thematically, using both manual methods and NVivo software. The study emphasizes the importance of authorizing and providing continence training in ways that reflect professional preferences and practical resource considerations to enhance its uptake and engagement.
Aim: The aim of the study was to explore practitioners' experiences and perspectives on continence training, in order to understand its relevance to practice and how take-up of, and engagement with, such training may be improved.Design: 27 qualitative interviews were conducted with nursing, medical and allied health practitioners in three hospitals.Methods: We analysed data thematically, both manually and with the aid of NVivo software. The research adheres to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research checklist.Results: Practitioners asserted the likely benefits of evidence-based continence training, including more judicious use of products, reduction in associated infection, better patient skin care and more facilitative communication with patients. Practitioners also identified preferred methods of continence training, according to their role and workload. To ensure better take-up of, and engagement with, continence training, it must be authorized as essential and provided in ways that reflect professional preferences and pragmatic resource considerations.

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

4.5
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