3.8 Article

Theoretical and practical knowledge of Nursing professionals on indirect blood pressure measurement at a coronary care unit

期刊

EINSTEIN-SAO PAULO
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 330-335

出版社

INST ISRAELITA ENSINO & PESQUISA ALBERT EINSTEIN
DOI: 10.1590/S1679-45082014AO2984

关键词

Nursing, team; Blood pressure determination/nursing; Blood pressure determination/methods; Health knowledge; attitudes; practice; Questionnaires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine and to analyze the theoretical and practical knowledge of Nursing professionals on indirect blood pressure measurement. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 31 professionals of a coronary care unit (86% of the Nursing staff in the unit). Of these, 38.7% of professionals were nurses and 61.3% nurse technicians. A validated questionnaire was used to theoretical evaluation and for practice assessment the auscultatory technique was applied in a simulation environment, under a non-participant observation. Results: To the theoretical knowledge of the stages of preparation of patient and environment, 12.9% mentioned 5-minute of rest, 48.4% checked calibration, and 29.0% chose adequate cuff width. A total of 64.5% of professionals avoided rounding values, and 22.6% mentioned the 6-month deadline period for the equipment calibration. On average, in practice assessment, 65% of the steps were followed. Lacks in knowledge were primary concerning lack of checking the device calibration and stethoscope, measurement of arm circumference to choose the cuff size, and the record of arm used in blood pressure measurement. Conclusion: Knowledge was poor and had disparities between theory and practice with evidence of steps taken without proper awareness and lack of consideration of important knowledge during implementation of blood pressure measurement. Educational and operational interventions should be applied systematically with institutional involvement to ensure safe care with reliable values.

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

3.8
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