Stress among student nurses: is it practical or academic?

Summary

• ? Previous research into stress among student nurses has only concentrated on the practical aspects of nursing and has ignored stress caused by the academic side of training. In comparing Registered General Nurse (RGN) and Diploma of Higher Education in Nursing (Dip. HE Nursing) students using a modified nurses stress scale, the intensity of stress was investigated.
• ? It was hypothesized that there would be a difference in the total stress scores between the two pre-registration education courses as well as within the practical and academic elements.
• ? Dip. HE Nursing students were significantly more stressed than RGN students, but equally for practical and academic elements. RGN students were significantly more stressed on the practical elements. Factors analysis clearly identified two factors: (i) the practical elements, and (ii) the academic elements of nursing. A third factor was also identified and this was related to stress induced by issues concerning death and suffering in the patient.
• ? These results have implications for the development of the nurse education course (Dip. HE Nursing) which is still in its infancy.

     

Dehydration: why is it still a problem?

Reports from organisations such as the Care Quality Commission have identified many hospital patients, particularly older people, are suffering from dehydration. A range of national initiatives have emphasised the importance of hydration and nutrition, and offered guidance to help address shortcomings, yet the problems persist. This article examines the interplay of factors that affect the assessment and identification of dehydration, and its prevention. It also offers strategies to help nurses to ensure patients receive adequate hydration.     

Inadvertent hypothermia: is it just a perioperative problem?

Patients undergoing surgery run the added risk of inadvertent hypothermia. This article suggests that simple measures undertaken in the ward can prevent this serious perioperative problem.     

Raising research awareness among midwives and nurses: does it work?

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two approaches to increase research awareness among midwives and nurses. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental with the attitudes of staff in the two groups being measured at two points (January and October 1997). SAMPLE: All midwives and nurses working in four clinical areas in an acute NHS Trust. The intervention arm of the study involved all midwives and nurses in the Clinical Directorate of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, while the control arm involved all nurses working in a specialist oncology and haematology unit and in the children's directorate. ETHICS: The Joint Ethics Committee considered approval unnecessary because the study involved staff and not patients. DATA COLLECTION: Data were collected by self-complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: A programme of education with policy and practice interventions targeted at ward sisters. OUTCOME MEASURES: Staff attitudes to, knowledge of, and level of involvement in, research. RESULTS: The study demonstrated a significant increase in both knowledge and use of research resources. Following the programme of education, staff in the intervention group were significantly more likely to use resources associated with research utilization and to report that they had read a research paper within the last month. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The time scale of the intervention was restricted by the funding available; a significant Hawthorne effect was evident with both groups showing an increase in knowledge; the pragmatic nature of the study meant that it was not possible to randomize the study groups; the scale of the study did not permit an economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of clinical governance challenges healthcare providers to improve the care they deliver. There are huge opportunities for Trusts to invest in developing staff knowledge and use of research. However, staff will only seize these opportunities if there is an appropriate, enabling environment--an environment that delivers intensive interventions and is sensitive to the wider structural factors in the NHS affecting staff morale and commitment. In the absence of this environment, what may be seen as opportunities to managers may be regarded as just another burden by staff.     

Role stress among first-line nurse managers and registered nurses – a comparative study

Background Studies show that first-line nurse managers (F-LNMs) experience high psychological job demands and inadequate managerial guidance. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether F-LNMs have higher stress levels and show more signs of stress-related ill health than registered nurses (RNs). Aim The aim of this study was to examine possible differences in self-rated health between F-LNMs and RNs on various psychosocial factors (e.g. job demand, job control and managerial support). Methods Data were collected at a university hospital in Sweden. Sixty-four F-LNMs and 908 RNs filled in a web-based questionnaire. Results Both F-LNMs and RNs reported having good health. Approximately 10–15% of the F-LNMs and RNs showed signs of being at risk for stress-related ill health. Statistically significant differences (Mann–Whitney U-test) were found in the distribution between the F-LNMs and the RNs on three indices of job control, job demand and managerial support. Conclusion Our findings suggest that F-LNMs were able to cope with high-demand job situations because of relatively high control over work. Implication for nursing management The implication for nursing management shows the needs for a work environment for both F-LNMs and RNs that includes high job control and good managerial support.