Perioperative nursing in public university hospitals: an ethnography

BMC Nursing

Lisbeth Uhrenfeldt⁴  Marianne Tewes¹  Ida Østrup Olsen³  Erik Elgaard Sørensen² 

[1] Heart Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark;Clinical Nursing Research Unit, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark;Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark;Department of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

关键词: Technology;    Perioperative nursing;    Nursing care;    Ethnography;    Cultural;    Anthropology;   

Others  :  1090518
DOI  :  10.1186/s12912-014-0045-7

 received in 2014-05-24, accepted in 2014-12-01,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In recent years, perioperative nursing has received ongoing attention as part of an interprofessional collaboration. Perioperative nursing is constantly faced with new challenges and opportunities that necessitate continual updates of nursing knowledge and technical skills. In light of the longstanding relationship between nursing and technology, it is interesting that few studies with this focus have been performed. Therefore, our research question was: What is the content of perioperative nursing and how do nurses facilitate the interaction between nursing care and technology in highly specialized operating rooms in public university hospitals?

Methods

An ethnography involving participant observations and interviews was conducted during a 9-month study period. The participants comprised 24 nurses from 9 different operating wards at 2 university hospitals in different regions of Denmark.

Results

Patients were addressed as either human beings or objects. Likewise, the participants’ technical skills were observed and described as either technical flair or a lack of technical skills/technophobia. The different ways in which the technical skills were handled and the different ways in which the patients were viewed contributed to the development of three levels of interaction between technology and nursing care: the interaction, declining interaction, and failing interaction levels.

Conclusion

Nursing practice at the interaction level is characterized by flexibility and excellence, while practice at the declining interaction level is characterized by inflexibility and rigidity. Nursing practice at the failing interaction level is characterized by staff members working in isolation with limited collaboration with other staff members in operating rooms. Considering that the declining and failing interaction levels are characterized by inflexibility, rigidity, and isolation in nursing practice, nurses at these two levels must develop and improve their qualifications to reach a level of flexible, excellent interaction. Nurse leaders must therefore refocus their skills on proficiency in perioperative nursing.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Sørensen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McGarvey HE, Chambers MAG, Boore JRP: Development and definition of the role of the operating department nurse: a review. J Adv Nurs 2000, 32(5):1092-1100.
• [2]Mitchell L, Flin R: Non-technical skills of the operating theatre scrub nurse: literature review. J Adv Nurs 2008, 63(1):15-24.
• [3]Fesler-Birch E: Perioperative Nurses’ Ability to Think Critically.Qualitaty Management in Health Care 2010,19(2):137–146.
• [4]Rudolfsson G: The Common World – A Model of the Perioperative Dialog, Its Ethos, and Characteristic Structural Caring Principles.International Journal of Human Caring 2010, 14(1):27–35.
• [5]Bull R, FitzGerald M: The Invisible Nurse – Behind the Scenes in an Australian OR. AORN Journal 2004, 79(4).
• [6]Bull R, FitzGerald M: Nursing in a technological environment: nursing care in the operation room. Int J Nurs Pract 2006, 12:3-7.
• [7]Cartalano K, Fickenscher K: Emerging technologies in the OR and their effect on perioperative professionals.AORN Journal 2007, 86(6):958–969.
• [8]Sweeny P: The Effects of Information Technology on Perioperative Nursing. AORN Journal 2010, 92(5).
• [9]Bouyer-Ferullo S: Preventing Perioperative Peripheral Nerve Injuries.AORN Journal 2013, 97(1).
• [10]Aulfrey L: Nurses realize the full potential of technology.Can Nurse 2007,103(5).
• [11]Riley R, Manias E: Govering time in operating rooms.Issues in Clinical Nursing, 2006, 15:546–553.
• [12]Leach LS, Myrtle RC, Weaver FA, Dasu S: Assessing the performance of surgical teams. Health Care Manag 2009, 34(1):29-41.
• [13]Alfredsdottir H, Bjornsdottir K: Nursing and patient safety in operating room. J Adv Nurs 2008, 61(1):29-37.
• [14]Minnick AF, Donaghey B, Slagle J, Weinger MB: Operating room team members’ views of workload, case difficulty, and nonroutine events. J Healthc Qual 2011, 34(3):16-24.
• [15]McKie A: Ethical reflections in an organizational and technological world. Br J Perioper Nurs 2004, 14(3):114-120.
• [16]Uhrenfeldt L, Aagaard H, Hall EOC, Ludvigsen MS, Fegran L, Meyer G: Patients’ experiences of intra-and inter-hospital transitions: a qualitative meta-synthesis. J Adv Nurs 2013, 69(8):1678-1690.
• [17]Boyle HJ: Patient Advocacy in the Perioperative Setting.AORN Journal 2005, 82(2):250–262.
• [18]Westerling K, Bergbom I: The importance of nursing in perioperative care: a patient’s perspective. J Adv Perioper Care 2008, 3(4):133-144.
• [19]Rudolfsson G, Post I, Eriksson K: The expression of caring within the perioperative dialogue: a hermeneutiz study. Int J Nurs Stud 2007, 44:905-915.
• [20]Lindwall L, Post I: Continuity created by nurses in the perioperative dialogue – at literature review.Scand J Caring Sci 2009, 23:395–401.
• [21]Barnard A: Nursing and the primacy of technological process. Int J Nurs Stud 1999, 36:435-442.
• [22]Barnard A, Gerber R: Understanding technology in contemporary surgical nursing: a phenomenographic examination. Nurs Inq 1999, 6:157-166.
• [23]Sandelowski M: Troubling distinctions: a semiotics of the nursing/technology relationsip. Nurs Inq 1999, 6(3):189-207.
• [24]Barnard A, Sandelowski M: Technology and humane nursing care: (ir)reconcilable or invented difference. J Adv Nurs 2001, 34(3):367-375.
• [25]Tame SL: The effect of continuing professional education on perioperative nurses’ relationships with medical staff: findings from a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs 2012, 69(4):817-827.
• [26]Spradley JP: The etnographic interview. Harcourt Brace, Jovanoich College Publishers, Orlando, Florida; 1979.
• [27]Spradley JP: Participant observation. Harcourt Brace, Jovanoich College Publiishers, Orlando, Florida; 1980.
• [28]Hammersley M, Atkinson P: Ethnography. Principles in practice. Routledge, New York; 2007.
• [29]Uhrenfeldt L, Hall EOC: Clinical wisdom among proficient nurses. Nurs Ethics 2007, 14(3):387-398.
• [30]Benner P, Tanner C, Chesla C: Expertise in Nursing Practice, second Edition: Caring, Clinical Judgment, and Ethics. Springer 2009.
• [31]Sørensen EE, Delmar C, Pedersen B: Leading nurses in dire straits: head nurses navigation between nursing and leadership roles. J Nurs Manag 2011, 19:421-430.
• [32]Alvesson M, Skjöldberg K: Tolkning og reflektion [Interpretation and reflection]. Studentlitteratur (1994, 2007).
• [33]Edhlund B: Nvivo 9 Essentials NEW 2011. ISBN-10: 1446707628 ISBN-13: 9781446707623.
• [34]Sørensen EE: Sygeplejefaglig ledelse. En empirisk undersøgelse af samspil mellem ledelse og faglighed I ledende sygeplejerskers praksis I dansk sygehusvæsen [Nursing Management: An Emphirical Study of Interaction between Management and Professionalism in the Practice og Danish Hospital Nurses]. Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University 2006, Aarhus, Denmark.
• [35]Sørensen EE: Bag masker og lukkede døre. En etnografisk undersøgelse af operationsassisterende funktioneri i dansk hospitalsvæsen [Behind masks and closed doors]. 2011. ISBN: 978-87-90880-36-1.
• [36]Scheel ME: Interaktionel Sygeplejepraksis [Interactional Nursing] 3. udgave Munksgaard 2005, København.
• [37]Scheel ME, Pedersen BD, Rosenkrands V: Interactional nursing – a practice-theory in the dynamic field between the natural, human and social sciences. Scand J Caring Sci 2008, 22(4):629-636.
• [38]SSN (Sykepleiernes Samarbejde i Norden): ‘Etiske retningslinjer for sygeplejeforskning i Norden’ [NNF, The Nordic Nurses Federation’s ‘Ethical guidelines for nursing research in the Nordic countries’], DSR 2003, Danmark.
• [39]Beuzekom M, Boer F: A Comparison of US, UK, and Dutch Perioperative Staffing Practices.AORN Journal 2006, 84(4):632–641.
• [40]Martinsen K: Operasjonssykepleieren og den sårbare pasienten. [The theatre nurse and the vulnerable patient]. In Grethe Myklestul Dåvøy, Petrin Hege Eide, Ingeborg Hansen (red.): Operasjonssykepleie. Oslo: Gyldendal; 2009.
• [41]Post I: Perioperative nurses’ encounter with value conflicts. A descriptive study. Scand J Caring Sci 1998, 12:81-88.
• [42]Sigurdssom HO: The Meaning of Being a Perioperative Nurse.AORN Journal 2001, 74(2):205–217.
• [43]Coe R, Gould D: Disagreement and aggression in the operating theatre. J Adv Nurs 2007, 61(6):609-618.
• [44]Finn R: The language of teamwork: reproducing professional divisions in the operating theatre. Hum Relat 2008, 61(1):103-130.
• [45]Hind M, Andrews C, Galvin K, Jackson D, Platt-Mellor S: Interprofessional working and learning in a UK operating department. Br J Perioper Nurs 2001, 11(2):74-83.
• [46]Sørensen EE, Hall EOC: Seeing the big picture in nursing: a source og human and professional pride. J Adv Nurs 2011, 67(10):2284-2291.
• [47]Kvale S, Brinkmann S: Interview. Introduktion til et håndværk. [Interview. Introduction to a craft]. Hans Reitzels Forlag 2009, København.
• [48]Delmar C: ‘Generalizability’ as recognition: reflections on a foundational problem in qualitative research. Qual Stud 2010, 1(2):115-128.
• [49]Allen D: Ethnomethodological insights into insider–outsider relationships in nursing ethnographies of healthcare settings. Nurs Inq 2004, 11(1):14-24.