Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T05:28:24.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Medical Device Education among Australian Registered Nurses: A Comparison of Agency and Hospital Nurses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Edwina A. McConnell ,
Jan Fletcher  and
Jutta H. Nissen
Edwina A. McConnell
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and University of South Australia School of Nursing
Jan Fletcher
Affiliation:
Nurses Board of South Australia
Jutta H. Nissen
Affiliation:
Flinders Medical Centre
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A cross-sectional survey was used to compare the medical device education of 142 agency- and 443 hospital-employed Australian registered nurses. The two groups differed significantly on descriptive characteristics and on what they had learned about medical devices. Potential negative aspects of device use were nurse stress and patient harm, with a significantly larger proportion of hospital nurses indicating their use of any medical device had made them feel stress. Fear of harming the patient and being unsure of how to use the device caused stress in the majority of nurses. The incidence of patient harm was approximately 10% for each group.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 585 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Abramson, N. S. A., Wald, K. S., Grenvik, A. N. A., et al. Adverse occurrences in intensive care units. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989, 224, 1582–84.Google Scholar
2.Australian Nursing Federation (South Australia Branch). Technology and Nursing, Policy Statement. Adelaide, South Australia,1991.Google Scholar
3.Bliss, J. B., & Alsdorf, P.Generic orientation for agency nurses. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 1992, 23, 60–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Brewer, A. M. Technology, education and the nurse. The Lamp 1981, 06, 43–47.Google Scholar
5.Carnevali, D. L.Nursing perspectives in health care technology. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 1985, 9, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Carter, R., Aitchison, M., Mufti, G. R., & Scott, R.Catheterisation: Your urethra in their hands. British Journal of Medicine, 1990, 301, 905.Google Scholar
7.Cohen, M. R., & Davis, N. M.Recognizing the dangers of free flow from an E.I.D. Nursing 93, 1993, 23, 56–59.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Crummey, V.Ignorance can hurt. Nursing Times, 1989, 85, 66–70.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Drew, B. J., Ide, B., & Sparacino, P. S. A.Accuracy of bedside electrocardiographic monitoring: A report on current practices of critical care nurses. Heart & Lung, 1991, 20, 597–607.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Dyro, J. F.Impact of technology on biomedical engineering and nursing: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation 18th Annual Meeting. Arlington, VA, 1983.Google Scholar
11.Fitter, M.The impact of new technology on workers and patients in the health services. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1986.Google Scholar
12.George, V. D., & Boruch, R. F.Medical device reporting. AORN Journal, 1989, 49, 815–27.Google Scholar
13.Grau, P. A., & Willens, J. S.Staff nurses vs. agency nurses. Nursing 89, 1989, 19, 48–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Hughes, K. K., & Marcantonio, R. J.Recruitment, retention, and compensation of agency and hospital nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 1991, 21, 46–52.Google Scholar
15.Jackson, B. S.Agency nursing: Costs and quality. Journal of Nursing Administration, 1989, 19, 5, 12.Google Scholar
16.Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Equipment management. Plant, Technology & Safety Management Series, 1988, 4, 32–35.Google Scholar
17.Laing, G.The impact of technology on nursing. Medical Instrumentation, 1982, 6, 241–42.Google Scholar
18.Lenihan, J. M. A., & Abbey, J. C.Symbiosis: Nursing and the bioengineer. Nursing Clinics of North America, 1978, 12, 589–95.Google Scholar
19.McConnell, E. A.How and what staff nurses learn about the medical devices they use in direct patient care. Research in Nursing & Health, 1995, 18, 165–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.McConnell, E. A.The impact of machines on the work of critical care nurses. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 1990, 2, 45–52.Google Scholar
21.McConnell, E. A.The nurse: Liaison between patient and machine. Plant, Technology & Maintenance Series, 1989, 1, 5–10.Google Scholar
22.Northrop, C. E.Status of recent nursing litigation. Nursing Economics, 1984, 2, 423–27.Google ScholarPubMed
23.Prescott, P. A.Use of nurses from supplemental services: Implications for hospitals. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 1986, 11, 81–88.Google Scholar
24.Sayer, W.Comparing hospital and agency nurses. Nursing Times, 1990, 86, 51.Google ScholarPubMed
25.Sheridan, D. R., Bronstein, J. E., & Walker, D. D.Using registry nurses: Coping with cost and quality issues. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 1982, 12, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Sinclair, V.High technology in critical care: Implications for nursing’s role and practice. Focus on Critical Care, 1988, 15, 37–41.Google Scholar
27.Smith, R., & Brdlik, G. C.Medical devices: Where should learning begin? Dean's Notes, 1985, 6, 1–3.Google Scholar
28.Walleck, C.The impact of technology on critical care nursing. Plant, Technology & Safety Management Series, 1989, 1, 27–30.Google Scholar