Literature DB >> 24370275

Nursing Activities Score (NAS): 5 years of experience in the intensive care units of an Italian University hospital.

Alberto Lucchini1, Christian De Felippis2, Stefano Elli2, Liliana Schifano2, Federica Rolla2, Flavia Pegoraro2, Roberto Fumagalli3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively analyse the application of the Nursing Activities Score (NAS) in an intensive care department from January 2006 to December 2011.
METHOD: The sample consists of 5856 patients in three intensive care units (GICU: General Intensive Care Unit, NeuroICU: Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit, CICU: Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit) of an Italian University hospital. The NAS was calculated for each patient every 24 hours. In patients admitted to general ICU, the following scores: SAPS 2 and SAPS 3 (Simplified Acute Physiology Score), RASS (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and Braden were also recorded along with the NAS.
RESULTS: The mean NAS for all patients was 65.97% (Standard Deviation ± 2.53), GICU 72.55% (± 16.28), NeuroICU 59.33% (± 16.54), CICU 63.51% (SD ± 14.69). The average length of hospital stay (LOS) was 4.82 (SD ± 8.68). The NAS was high in patients with increasing LOS (p<0.003) whilst there were no significant differences for age groups except for children 0-10 years (p<0.002). The correlation of NAS and SAPS 2 was r=0.24 (p=0.001), NAS and SAPS 3 r=-0.26 (p=0.77), NAS and RASS r=-0.23 (p=0.001), NAS and Braden r=0.22 (p=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: This study described the daily use of the NAS for the determination of nursing workload and defines the staff required.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Critical Care; Intensive care units; Nursing; Nursing management; Nursing workload

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24370275     DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2013.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intensive Crit Care Nurs        ISSN: 0964-3397            Impact factor:   3.072


  6 in total

1.  Feasibility of Representing Data from Published Nursing Research Using the OMOP Common Data Model.

Authors:  Hyeoneui Kim; Jeeyae Choi; Imho Jang; Jimmy Quach; Lucila Ohno-Machado
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2017-02-10

Review 2.  Intermediate care units : Recommendations on facilities and structure.

Authors:  C Waydhas; E Herting; S Kluge; A Markewitz; G Marx; E Muhl; T Nicolai; K Notz; V Parvu; M Quintel; E Rickels; D Schneider; K R Steinmeyer-Bauer; G Sybrecht; T Welte
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 0.840

3.  Response from Authors.

Authors:  Valerio Rendiniello; Manuela Mainetti; Luca Carenzo; Daniela Elli; Elena Costantini; Alessandro Protti; Federica Sartori; Maurizio Cecconi
Journal:  Intensive Crit Care Nurs       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 3.072

4.  Nursing physical workload and mental workload in intensive care units: Are they related?

Authors:  Kolsoom Nasirizad Moghadam; Minoo Mitra Chehrzad; Shademan Reza Masouleh; Maryam Maleki; Abbas Mardani; Shahaboddin Atharyan; Celia Harding
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2021-02-17

5.  Impact of COVID-19 on nursing time in intensive care units in Belgium.

Authors:  Arnaud Bruyneel; Maria-Cécillia Gallani; Jérôme Tack; Alain d'Hondt; Sebastien Canipel; Stéphane Franck; Pascal Reper; Magali Pirson
Journal:  Intensive Crit Care Nurs       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 3.072

6.  The Medical Emergency Team in Italy: an overview of in-hospital emergencies response.

Authors:  Alessandro Galazzi; Nicola Maria Bonasera Vincenti; Gian Domenico Giusti; Matteo Brioni; Ileana Adamini; Dario Laquintana; Giuseppe Ristagno; Giacomo Grasselli
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2020-06-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.