Registered Nurses Evaluation of the Addition of ...walker/statistics/Nursing... · This study investigated if Registered Nurses (RNs) working in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and

Running head: REGISTERED NURSES EVALUATION 1

Registered Nurses Evaluation of the Addition of

Intensivist Physicians in the

Intensive Care Unit and the Neurosurgical Unit

REGISTERED NURSES EVALUATION 2

Abstract

This study investigated if Registered Nurses (RNs) working in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and

Neurosurgical Care Unit (NSU), found the addition of Intensivist physicians to be favorable. Satisfaction

was evaluated on 17 different measures at baseline, prior to the addition of the Intensivist, and six

months after working with the Intensivist for that amount of time. A 5-point Likert-type scale was

developed for each measure. The target population was the total number of RNs working between both

units and participation was voluntary. Participant demographic information was not obtained.

Participation at baseline and follow-up was roughly 50% of the total number of staff working between

these units. Three specific questions were analyzed for the purpose of this study, because they are of

particular importance in the care provided in these units. These questions asked if there is an

atmosphere of support and learning, if the Intensivist addresses end of life in an appropriate and timely

manner, and the importance of daily rounding. Large effect sizes were noted for two out of the three

measures, moderate for the third measure, and confidence intervals were resulted at 95%. The data

supports a statistically significant change in RNs response from baseline to follow-up. Overall, the results

indicate that RNs rated the three specifically analyzed questions more favorably after working with the

Intensivist over six months.

Keywords: registered nurses, intensivist physician, intensive care, neurosurgical care, support,

end of life, daily rounds


Introduction

Being a nurse is challenging. This became particularly apparent during undergraduate course

studies and clinical rotations, when it was realized that the nursing profession is unlike any other. There

is an immense responsibility with little authority that many times patients, families, and professionals

take for granted. Intensive care nurses are commonly found to be motivated and ambitious individuals

with strong autonomy and confidence in advocating for what is right and just in the care of their

patients. They also tend to strive for overall excellence and support continuing education through

seminars, workshops, specialty certifications, and advanced degrees. Currently, there are seven nurses

working toward graduate level degrees between the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and the Neurosurgical

Unit (NSU).

In the ICU, nurses see people at their worst and also at their best. Working in the ICU can be

frustrating, though this work can also be very rewarding. There are tears, there are joys, and there are

great opportunities to see life unexpectedly return and people heal. Death is also a common occurrence

in the ICU. Because of the amount of work typically required with just one ICU patient, collaboration

with a strong multi-disciplinary team to effectively and efficiently provide holistic care through all stages

of hospitalization is necessary. The team is particularly important to provide compassionate care

reflective of the patient’s wishes during end of life, focusing on comfort to allow for a dignified and

peaceful departure from life, with undivided attention and support from staff. The team includes various

physicians, registered nurses (RNs), pharmacists, resident physicians, dieticians, the ICU educator, and

the case manager. Patients, if they are able, and family are encouraged to be involved with the team,

especially during daily rounds, as a way to listen to the various disciplines and to be heard and respected

in the care being provided. January, 2013, an Intensivist physician was added to the ICU team, and

currently this position is rotated among 3 full-time Intensivists and 1 part-time fill-in Intensivist. The


Intensivist oversees the care of all ICU status patients and is only a few steps away if needed, as well as

reachable via pager when they are off shift.

Before the intensivist, there was ambiguity as to which physician to contact should the need

arise, in particular, for issues related to changes in patient condition to obtain orders and direction. Due

to the high acuity typically found with intensive care patients, it is common to have several doctors

comprising the multi-disciplinary team and working together to manage patient care. This required

more phone calls to several doctors, prior to the Intensivist. One nurse stated that there were “too

many cooks in the kitchen.” This made continuity of care difficult to achieve among the various

providers. Typically, if an immediate need arose overnight, hospital residents would respond to assist

with patient care and were many times unfamiliar with the complexities of each patient, which again

resulted in a lack of continuity and ineffective collaboration.

To evaluate satisfaction with the addition of the Intensivist, a survey assessing 17 different

quality measures was completed by RNs at baseline, prior to working with the Intensivist, and six

months after working with the Intensivist for that time period. The goal of this study is to determine if

nurses find working with the Intensivist to be positive based on these variables. It is believed that RNs

will agree more favorably with the 17 variables after 6 months of working with the Intensivist. Also, it is

theorized that the Intensivist offers a strong presence creating a supportive atmosphere, as well as

timely direction and collaboration to expedite care, which will ultimately lead to improved satisfaction

among nurses. This evaluation will be based on the analyses of three out of the 17 questions.

Review of Literature

Upon review of the literature, it became apparent that there is not a lot of specific information

regarding Intensivists and satisfaction with other team members, particularly RNs. This may be a newer

concept, or because ICUs utilize other professionals in this leadership role, such as clinical nurse

specialists or advanced practice nurses. According to an article by Wilson, Samirat, Yilmaz, Gajic, and


Iyer (2013) there is a growing trend in the employment of 24 hour attending physician coverage in the

ICU. There are identifiable concepts and theories that were noted through reviewing the literature that

have been selected for discussion, because they directly relate to the three questions that were

statistically analyzed.

Atmosphere of Support and Learning

Azoulay, Timsit, Sprung, Rusinova, Lafabrie et al. (2009) conducted a survey to identify sources

of conflict in the ICU. This is important to consider, as conflict does not promote a supportive or learning

friendly environment, and could potentially ruin effective collaboration. The authors recognized that

nurse-physician conflicts were at 32.6%, and the most common behaviors leading to conflict were

communication break-down, lack of trust, and negativity. The results also indicate that over 70% of staff

in the ICU experienced some typed of conflict (Azoulay et al., 2009). It is essential that medical

personnel working in the ICU are aware of the potential and actual occurrence of conflict. To foster an

environment that thrives on support and learning, nurses and physicians, in particular, need to

encourage and support this, so that optimal patient outcomes are achieved. Conflict causes barriers

within people’s ability to communicate well with each other, leading to decreased morale. This is

especially troublesome in the ICU, due to the amount of coordination and level of care required.

Ineffective collaboration between nurses and physicians negatively impacts patient care, with

decreased quality of care, leading to dissatisfaction among staff (Tang, Chan, Zhou, & Liaw, 2013). This is

problematic, as it also lacks support and encouragement to inspire a supportive learning environment.

In another article, Albano, Elliott, Lusardi, Scott and Thomas (2005) looked at an adult medical-surgical-

trauma ICU that was found to provide excellent patient care. They attribute “collaboration and expertise

among the nursing staff, intensivists, and interdisciplinary colleagues” as directly related to their

“award-winning unit” (Albano et al., 2005, p. 169). Therefore, research again supports a strong need for

collaboration to achieve an atmosphere of support and learning.


End of Life

Weigand, Grant, Jooyoung and Gergis (2013) identified that families of older adults do not

always feel included or informed as well as they desire when making end-of-life (EOL) decisions. They

state that creating a philosophy that identifies family needs to provide support is important. Weigand et

al. (2013) suggests getting to know family members through open communication about their thoughts,

perceptions, and patient wishes. They also state there is a need to “support families as difficult and

complex decisions are made in collaboration with the health care team, and prepare families for the

dying process” (Weigland et al., 2013, p. 61). Similar in design structure and goals of the present study,

Wilson et al. (2013) conducted a retrospective design study to specifically evaluate death in the ICU six

months before and six months after the addition of 24 hour ICU Intensivist coverage. The results showed

overall improvement on areas related to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status, length of life support, and

shortened time to initiate family care conferences. The authors also concluded that continuity of care

with Intensivist presence is key in providing strong collaborative efforts and improved patient care.

White, Ernecoff, Billings, and Arnold (2013) investigated if patients prefer to die at home,

instead of in the ICU, and related quality of life to the dying process. They state this concept of quality

related to dying first arose with patients who had terminal cancer. White et al. (2013) pointed out that

generalizing on this idea is difficult, because many patients in the ICU do not have clearly identifiable

end-stage conditions. The authors state that critical illnesses, such as sepsis and vital organ injury, carry

an approximate mortality rate of 50%. White et al. (2013) states it is “rarely possible to make accurate,

prospective (pre ICU admission) judgments that individual patients cannot survive their acute illness” (p.

264). Therefore, it is especially important to identify realistic needs of the patient, and approach this

topic delicately, with clear and supportive information as to the prognosis and expectations of the

disease process. The Intensivist can be important in coordinating this type of care and having these

difficult conversations.


Daily Rounds

An article by Lane, Ferri, Lemaire, McLaughlin, and Stelfox (2013) noted that patient care rounds

in the ICU are a key tool that healthcare providers use to communicate and make patient care decisions.

Lane et al. (2012) learned that research regarding this topic is limited and identified barriers to patient

care rounds as interruptions during rounds and the length of time rounds can require. However, it is

important to outweigh potential negative distractions with the benefits to be gained.

A before and after study was conducted by Jacobowski, Girard, Mulder, and Ely (2010) to

investigate the impact of daily rounds, explicitly, from a family perspective. Jacobowski et al. (2010)

identified that 30-50% of families reported inadequate comprehension of the terminology used by

medical personnel. They also learned that families appreciate this communication tool and the chance

to have questions answered about the anticipated treatments and plan. However, an available physician

to provide a summary to families in lay language assisted them to feel better prepared for more in-

depth conversations at a later time (Jacobowski et al., 2010). Families being included in daily rounds

results in one cohesive team working toward the same goals in the care provided.

Methods

Participants

The target population was Registered Nurses working in the ICU and NSU located in a hospital in

a suburb of Chicago, Illinois, with a population of almost 200,000 residents in 2012. This study lacks

participant demographic markers, such as gender, age, race, years of service, education level, and

language preferences. Fall of 2012, prior to the addition of the intensivist physician, patients with

neurological disease and neurosurgical procedures were separated from the general ICU population into

an 8 bed unit, leaving 14 beds in ICU, totaling 22 intensive care beds. Logistically, the units are

connected and the Intensivist works within both divisions. At the time of the survey, both units were

under one manager as well.


Materials and Procedure

Participation was voluntary. Participants were asked to complete a written survey containing 17

questions with a 5-point Likert-type scale (See Appendix A). Responses varied from strongly disagree to

strongly agree. Once data were obtained, participant responses were coded as: strongly disagree – 1,

disagree – 2, neutral – 3, agree – 4, strongly agree – 5, and the data were then entered into the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program for analysis. Out of the 17 total questions,

three will be evaluated for the purpose of this study. Specifically, these questions are as follows:

question 2, “there is an atmosphere of support and learning”, question 6, “physicians in the ICU address

end of life in an appropriate and timely manner, question 15, “daily rounds are an important part of

patient care in the ICU.” Descriptive statistics were completed for each of the three analyzed quality

measures and include tables and graphs (See Appendix B). Inferential statistics, dependent sample

repeated design t-test, was conducted for each variable as well (See Appendix C). The differences

between baseline and follow-up questions are noted in Appendix D.

Operational Definitions

The dependent variables are the RNs responses to the 17 questions. The independent variable is

the Intensivist. An Intensivist is a physician who specializes in the treatment and care provided to

patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Question 2 asks if there is an atmosphere of support and

learning. Support is commonly defined as preventing someone or something from falling, to advocate

and corroborate, to patiently endure or tolerate. These terms are important to work that occurs in ICU.

Question 6 inquires if physicians address end of life issues in a timely manner. End of life can be related

to foreseen circumstances, such as progressively worsening illness, and unforeseen circumstances that

could be related to a devastating new diagnosis of a life limiting disease or a traumatic injury. Issues

related to end of life involve do-not-resuscitate status, family members experiencing difficulty and

differing opinions in the care that should and should not be provided, and uncertainty about the wishes


of the patient. Question 15 asks if daily rounds are an important part of care provided in the ICU. At this

hospital, daily rounds occur Monday through Friday in the morning. Members of the multi-disciplinary

team, including family members, gather outside each patient’s room and discuss the patient’s case,

status, and potential needs. The team then makes plans and adjustments accordingly.

Sample Size, Power, Precision

The total number of RNs working between the ICU and the NSU was the intended sample size.

The initial survey was completed December, 2012, on site in the unit. At the time of the initial survey,

there were a total of 42 RNs working in the ICU and 18 in the NSU including full-time, part-time, and

registry staff, for a total of 60 intensive care nurses. Out of this total, 23 participants (55%) working in

the ICU, and seven (39%) working in the NSU, completed the initial survey, totaling 30 participants.

When considering both units together, this equates to a 50% lack of initial participation. At the time of

the follow-up survey in July of 2013, 36 RNs worked in the ICU and the total number of NSU RNs

remained at 18, totaling 54. The follow-up survey included a total of 28 participants, 52% of the total

number of RNs, 19 (53%) from the ICU and 9 (50%) from the NSU, leaving 48% lack of participation. The

sample size was initially right at the mark to meet the central limit theorem; however, the number of

participants who responded in follow-up decreased by two participants and the distribution of the

follow-up survey changed.

Statistical Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states there is no difference between the paired questions 2 and 2b, 6 and

6b, 15 and 15b. (H0: paired difference = 0). The alternative hypothesis states there is a difference

between the paired questions (H1: paired difference does not = 0). Alpha level is at .05; though, multiple

correction comparison method, Bonferroni Correction, was performed to account for this dependent

statistical test being performed at the same time on 3 different variables. The significance level (.05) was


divided by three to lower the alpha level (.017) and take into account the number of comparisons being

performed, which is three. There are 25 degrees of freedom and a 95% confidence interval.

Results

Assumptions

Assumptions for the statistical evaluations completed were met, except in regards to normality

test results. The dependent variable data was continuous, measured at interval level. A normal

distribution was observed when looking at the histograms, and skewness and kurtosis fell within the

range of -2.00 to +2.00, except for question 15b, where kurtosis resulted at 3.024. Boxplots revealed

outliers for questions 2, 2b, 15, and 15b. Also, standard deviation (SD) was not exceedingly spread out

from the mean on all three questions, where SD was less than the mean. A piori tests of normality,

Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk, reveal that p < .05 for each of the investigated questions, 2, 2b,

6, 6b, 15, 15b. This means that normality cannot be assumed for these questions. However, when

considering the majority rule, there were more elements overall for each question, indicating normal

distribution of the dependent variables (See Appendix B).

Descriptive Statistics

For all three questions, n = 30 at baseline with n = 2 for missing data. Follow-up questions, n =

28, with n = 4 for missing data. Question 2, the M = 3.43, SD = 1.104, skewness at -.313, and kurtosis at -

.717. Question 2b, M = 4.18, SD = .863, skewness at -1.1, and kurtosis at 1.135. Question 6, M = 2.70,

SD = 1.088, skewness at -.038, and kurtosis at -1.377. Question 6b, M = 3.39, SD = 1.227, skewness =

-.445, kurtosis = -.855. Question 15, M = 3.73, SD = .868, skewness = -1.125, and kurtosis = 2.426. For

question 15b, M = 4.36, SD = .826, skewness at -1.628, and kurtosis at 3.024 (See Appendix B).

Paired Samples Correlations

Correlations between the two scores from baseline to follow-up were reviewed. Question two,

paired samples correlation equals -.045, with p = .828. Question 6, paired samples correlation equals


.034, with .869 alpha level. Question 15, paired samples correlation equals -.086, and alpha at .678. The

null cannot be rejected at the .05 alpha level and, therefore, significance is questionable. Overall, this

means that the data does not support significance that these questions should be paired. We do know,

however, that in theory these questions should be related, since they are the same questions from

baseline to 6 months follow-up.

Inferential Statistics

Dependent samples t-test was run to compare baseline data with responses obtained at 6

month follow-up for questions 2, 6, and 15 (See Appendix C). In regards to question 2, “there is an

atmosphere of support and learning, not retribution”, the tabled critical value at .05 alpha = 2.060, df =

25, 2-tailed test. The value of the sample test statistic = -3.134, with sample p-value at .004. The

observed t-value of -3.134 is beyond the critical boundary of 2.060, therefore, we reject the null and

accept the alternative that there is a difference between the baseline and 6 month follow-up survey.

Question 6, “physicians address end of life in appropriate and timely manner”, the tabled critical

value at .05 alpha = 2.060, df = 25, 2-tailed. The value of the sample test statistic = -2.534, with sample

p-value at .018. Because the observed t-value of -2.534 is beyond the critical boundary of 2.060, we

reject the null and accept the alternative that a difference was noted between surveys.

Question 15, “daily rounds are an important part of ICU patient care”, the tabled critical value at

.05 alpha = 2.060, df = 25, 2-tailed test. The value of the sample test statistic = -3.143, with sample p-

value at .004. Because the observed t-value of -3.143 is beyond the critical boundary of 2.060, we reject

the null and accept the alternative that there is a difference between baseline and 6 month follow-up in

regards to daily rounds.

Confidence Intervals at 95%

Error bars reveal midpoints for all three questions are separate from each other and do not

overlap, which indicates a statistically significant difference between baseline and follow-up (See


Appendix D). For all three questions, we are confident that out of 100 samples, 95 would contain the

population mean difference parameter. Because all three intervals do not contain 0, we reject the null

and retain the alternative hypothesis that 2, 2b, 6, 6b, 15, 15b are not equal to each other. Also, there is

a lot of distance between the errors in the model and point estimates.

Specifically, question 2 population mean difference parameter is estimated at -.846, within the

interval of -1.402 and -.290. The distance between the error in the model is (.270) and the point

estimate (-.846). For question 6, the population mean paired difference parameter, estimated at

-.808, is within the interval of -1.464 and -.151. The distance between the error in the model is (.319)

and the points estimate (-.808). Question 15, population mean paired difference parameter, estimated

at -.692, falls within the interval of -1.146 and -.239. The distance between the error in the model is

(.220) with the point estimate (-.692).

Effect Size (Cohen’s d)

Because statistical differences were noted, effect size was computed, as the differences

between each question from baseline to follow-up are believed to not be random. There is confidence

that there are differences between the two means. Since the null was rejected, the magnitude of the

mean differences were evaluated using the paired samples statistic results. Question 2 and 15 effect

sizes =.89 and .90. These values are greater than Cohen’s d benchmark value of .80, which represents a

large effect size. There is about 9/10 standard deviation difference between baseline and follow-up in

regards to these questions, and they were likely present in the population to a large degree. Question 6

effect size =.69, falls between benchmark values of .50 and .80, meaning the results are moderate in

effect, with 7/10 standardized difference. Overall, in regards to questions 2, 6, and 15, we learned that

there is a practical difference between how nurses rated these questions prior to working with the

Intensivist, when compared to having worked with Intensivist over the course of 6 months.


Power Analysis

The null was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. Type II error was controlled

against, where power values are greater than or equal to .80 for questions 2 and 15. Power for question

2 (.88) and question 15 (.89), means there is an 88% and 89% probability of achieving statistically

significant results for these questions. Question 6 power value is at .69, meaning there is a 69%

probability of achieving statistically significant results. Sample size, n = 26, is below the central limit

theorem; however, since normality was assumed, n < 30 is appropriate. Results were calculated by

entering effect size data, the paired sample means and SDs, into syntax file where results produced

Cohen’s d and power values listed below.

Independent and Dependent Sample t-Tests:

Cohen's d and Power

Cohens d Power

_________ _________

-.89 .88

-.69 .69

-.90 .89

Post-Hoc

Tests of normality, Kolomov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk, reveal that p > .05 for the difference

between questions 2 and 2b, 6 and 6b, meaning we fail to reject the null and normality can be assumed

for these questions. The dependent variable is believed to be similar to the population, skewness and

kurtosis fall within the normal range of -2.00 to +2.00, the SD are less than the mean, and histograms

and boxplots look good. The difference between question 2 and 2b, M = -.8462, SD = 1.38, skewness =

.100, and kurtosis = .533. The boxplots reveal an outlier at baseline and also at follow-up. The difference

between question 6 and 6b, M = -.8077, SD 1.63, skewness = .209, and kurtosis = .105. Question 15 and

15b, however, p < .05, and normality cannot be assumed. Also, when looking at the boxplot outlier is

present. The mean difference = -.6923, SD = 1.12, skewness = 1.17, and kurtosis = 4.05. For this

question, there are 4 indicators that there is not normal distribution, including Kolmongorov-Smirnov


and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests, boxplot, and kurtosis. There were 2 indictors that support normality.

Therefore, question 15 goes against majority rule and normality cannot be assumed (See Appendix D).

Discussion

Limitations

Individual markers were not obtained for the participants, such as such as gender, age, race,

years of service, education level, and language preferences. Therefore, it was not possible to analyze

these characteristics at an aggregate level. This information would have been important, as it would

allow for insight as to the RNs perceptions regarding the 17 different concepts at baseline and after

working with the intensivist physician for six months. Understanding participant demographics would

allow for further break down and a possible greater understanding of the results and how they relate.

Another limitation is that the participants were identified with numbers at baseline and at six

month follow-up, however, these numbers were not linked together to identify each participant from

baseline to follow-up. This is problematic, because it is not possible to know if participant number one at

baseline is participant number one at follow-up and, therefore, making comparisons among each

participant is not likely. This may have affected the paired samples correlation results as well. It is also

unfortunate this was not accounted for, since the goal of the study was to determine RNs satisfaction

and essentially his or her opinions as to the agreement or disagreement on the variables. Additionally,

without having linked participant numbers, it is unclear if the gain in two participants in the NSU was

partially related to the four participant loss in the ICU, since there had been movement of staff between

the units.

Despite one question not being answered by a single participant, the overall missing data is

systematic. This is because 4 participants from the ICU initially completed the survey; however, they did

not complete the follow-up survey. Similarly, two participants from NSU did not complete the baseline


survey, though the follow-up survey had two extra participants. The average missing data is over 5%,

which is the rule to impute the mean, therefore, this would not be appropriate.

When considering the paired samples correlation, significance in the relationship between each

of the three paired measures was questionable. The lack of significance does not seem to be a spurious

result, however. In theory, the three questions should be paired, as they are the same questions asked

at baseline and again at follow-up. What may be questionable is within the sampled participants.

Participants may not have completed baseline or follow-up surveys under the unit they were initially

grouped with, though the total number of staff in NSU did not change from baseline to follow-up. There

was a loss of six RNs from the total number of staff in ICU from baseline to follow-up. It seems possible

that maybe two additional RNs from NSU completed the follow-up survey, despite not completing the

initial survey. This information is lost and cannot be known at this point, due to lack of corresponding

participant numbers. The consequence is that statistical analysis indicates the three questions should

not be paired.

Implications for Nursing Practice

Overall, the results of this study support the addition of an Intensivist to the ICU team. It is

possible that because of improved RN satisfaction, Intensivists can be crucial in providing support that

nurtures learning. Educationally, Intensivists conduct research and participate in journal club, which

occurs in this ICU as a way to review the literature and determine if current care is supported by the

evidence. Openly communicating and discussing defects in the care delivery are necessary in providing

excellent care to patients and their families. The results of this study indicate a positive response to the

Intensivists promoting an atmosphere of support and learning, which will improve morale and lead to

stronger practice methods and patient outcomes. Research also indicated that Intensivists can be

important in coordinating end of life care and this study supports this as well. Improving this particular


area is especially important, because the result is final. Daily rounds were noted as key to improving

collaborative efforts and the RNs were in support of this activity.

Future Research

This topic is important and relevant to the ICU. The data alone is not as strong as it could have

been with specific participant demographics. Future study should consider obtaining detailed participant

characteristics, such as gender, age, race, years of service, education level, and language preferences.

This information could be broken down to further understand the responses, especially when

considering participant demographic details to identify a possible relationship between those

demographics and the changes noted. Also, it would be advantageous for participants to be consistently

identified numerically from baseline to follow-up. Identifying those details could help pinpoint where

beneficial changes could be implemented. Future study should consider evaluating measures related to

morale and staff retention in relation to the Intensivist, to determine if this role has an effect on those

variables.

Conclusion

Overall, this study presents statistical significance supporting the addition of Intensivists to the

ICU and NSU according to RN responses. The Intensivists are vital in facilitating collaboration among the

multi-disciplinary team, leading to increased knowledge within a supportive learning environment, as

well as providing excellent holistic care. When considering the three analyzed measures relating to an

atmosphere of support and learning, end of life, and daily rounds, the results of this study are consistent

with the available research presented. It is important to reiterate this study found the role of the

Intensivist to be positive, as evidenced by the opinions of the RNs that work most closely with these

physicians in this ICU.


References

Albano, A., Elliott, S., Lusardi, P., Scott, S., & Thomas, D. (2005). A step ahead: Strategies for excellence

in critical care nursing practice. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 17(2), 169-175.

Azoulay, E., Timsit, J. F., Sprung, C. L., Soares, M., Rusinova, K., & Lafabrie, A. et al. (2009). Prevalence

and factors of intensive care unit conflicts: The conflicus story. American Journal of Respiratory

& Critical Care Medicine, 180(9), 853-860.

Jacobowski, N. L., Girard, T. D., Mulder, J. A., & Ely, E. W. (2010). Communication in critical care: Family

rounds in the intensive care unit. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(5), 421-429.

Lane, D., Ferri, M., Lemaire, J., McLaughlin, K., & Stelfox, H. T. (2013). A systematic review of evidence-

informed practices for patient care rounds in the ICU. Critical Care Medicine,41(8), 2015-2029.

Tang, C. J., Chan, S. W., Zhou, W. T., & Liaw, S. Y. (2013). Collaboration between hospital physicians and

nurses: An integrated literature review. International Nursing Review, 60(3), 291-302.

Weigland, D. L., Grant, M. S., Jooyoung, C., & Gergis, M. A. (2013). Family-centered end-of-life care in

the ICU. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39 (8), p. 60-68.

White, D. B., Ernecoff, N., Billings, J. A., & Arnold, R. (2013). Is dying in an ICU a sign of poor quality end-

of-life care? American Journal of Critical Care, 22(3), 263-266.

Wilson, M. E., Samirat, R., Yilmaz, M., Gajic, O., & Iyer, V. N. (2013). Physician staffing models impact the

timing of decisions to limit life support in the ICU. Chest Journal, 143(3), 656-663.


Appendix A

Questions asked at baseline and 6 month follow-up:

1. Quality of care in this ICU is excellent 2. There is an atmosphere of support and learning (not retribution) when defects in care

delivery are discussed in this ICU 3. There is excellent patient and family communication by physicians in this ICU 4. There is excellent sepsis care in this ICU 5. I am empowered to suggest changes in care that promote patient safety 6. Physicians in the ICU address End of Life decisions in an appropriate and timely manner 7. There is a sense of team and mutual respect that exists among ICU nurses and the

physicians 8. Medical errors are discussed openly between the physicians and nurses 9. The physicians and nurses work together as a well-coordinated team 10. Morale in the unit is high when the physicians are present 11. Disagreements in care are resolved appropriately (i.e., not who is right but what is best

for the patient) 12. The physicians have professional communication with bedside nursing staff 13. Patient orders are clearly communicated from the physicians to the nursing staff 14. Patients have central venous access place appropriately and quickly 15. Daily rounds are an important part of patient care in the ICU 16. I receive excellent physician response when needed for my patients in this ICU 17. Current medical practice in this ICU is current and follows evidence based guidelines


Appendix B

Atmosphere of support & learning

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

strongly disagree 1 3.1 3.3 3.3

disagree 6 18.8 20.0 23.3

neutral 7 21.9 23.3 46.7

agree 11 34.4 36.7 83.3

strongly agree 5 15.6 16.7 100.0

Total 30 93.8 100.0

Missing 999 2 6.3

Total 32 100.0

Statistics

Atmosphere of

support & learning

Q2b

N Valid 30 28

Missing 2 4

Mean 3.43 4.18

Median 4.00 4.00

Mode 4 4

Std. Deviation 1.104 .863

Skewness -.313 -1.113

Std. Error of Skewness .427 .441

Kurtosis -.717 1.135

Std. Error of Kurtosis .833 .858

Percentiles

25 2.75 4.00

50 4.00 4.00

75 4.00 5.00


2b


Percent

Valid

disagree 2 6.3 7.1 7.1

neutral 2 6.3 7.1 14.3

agree 13 40.6 46.4 60.7

strongly agree 11 34.4 39.3 100.0

Total 28 87.5 100.0

Missing 999 4 12.5

Total 32 100.0



N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Atmosphere of support &

learning

30 1 5 3.43 1.104

Q2b 28 2 5 4.18 .863

Valid N (listwise) 26



Statistics

Physicians address

end of life

appropriate/timely

Q6b

N Valid 30 28

Missing 2 4

Mean 2.70 3.39

Median 2.50 4.00

Mode 2 4

Std. Deviation 1.088 1.227

Skewness -.038 -.445


Kurtosis -1.377 -.855


Percentiles

25 2.00 2.00

50 2.50 4.00

75 4.00 4.00

Physicians address end of life appropriate/timely


Percent

Valid


disagree 11 34.4 36.7 50.0

neutral 5 15.6 16.7 66.7

agree 10 31.3 33.3 100.0

Total 30 93.8 100.0

Missing 999 2 6.3

Total 32 100.0


Q6b


Percent

Valid


disagree 6 18.8 21.4 28.6

neutral 4 12.5 14.3 42.9

agree 11 34.4 39.3 82.1


Total 28 87.5 100.0

Missing 999 4 12.5

Total 32 100.0




Physicians address end of

life appropriate/timely

30 1 4 2.70 1.088

Q6b 28 1 5 3.39 1.227




Statistics

Daily rounds are an important

part of ICU pt care

Q15b

N Valid 30 28

Missing 2 4

Mean 3.73 4.36

Median 4.00 4.50

Mode 4 5

Std. Deviation .868 .826

Skewness -1.125 -1.628


Kurtosis 2.426 3.024


Percentiles

25 3.00 4.00

50 4.00 4.50

75 4.00 5.00

Daily rounds are an important part of ICU pt care


Percent

Valid


disagree 1 3.1 3.3 6.7

neutral 7 21.9 23.3 30.0

agree 17 53.1 56.7 86.7


Total 30 93.8 100.0

Missing 999 2 6.3

Total 32 100.0


Q15b


Percent

Valid

disagree 2 6.3 7.1 7.1

agree 12 37.5 42.9 50.0

strongly agree 14 43.8 50.0 100.0

Total 28 87.5 100.0

Missing 999 4 12.5

Total 32 100.0




Daily rounds are an

important part of ICU pt

care

30 1 5 3.73 .868

Q15b 28 2 5 4.36 .826




Appendix C

T-Test Question #2

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1

Atmosphere of support &

learning

3.42 26 1.102 .216

Q2b 4.27 26 .778 .152


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Atmosphere of support &

learning & Q2b

26 -.045 .828

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1

Atmosphere of support & learning - Q2b

-.846 1.377 .270 -1.402 -.290 -3.134 25 .004


T-Test Question #6



Pair 1

Physicians address end of

life appropriate/timely

2.65 26 1.093 .214

Q6b 3.46 26 1.240 .243


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Physicians address end of

life appropriate/timely & Q6b

26 .034 .869

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Std.

Devia

tion

Std. Error

Mean

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1

Physicians

address end

of life

appropriate/ti

mely - Q6b

-.808 1.625 .319 -1.464 -.151 -2.534 25 .018


T-Test Question #15



Pair 1

Daily rounds are an

important part of ICU pt care

3.77 26 .815 .160

Q15b 4.46 26 .706 .138


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1

Daily rounds are an

important part of ICU pt care

& Q15b

26 -.086 .678

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed) Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Pair 1

Daily rounds

are an

important

part of ICU

pt care -

Q15b

-.692 1.123 .220 -1.146 -.239 -3.143 25 .004


Appendix D

Question #2

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

differenceQ2 26 81.3% 6 18.8% 32 100.0%

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

differenceQ2

Mean -.8462 .27000

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound -1.4022

Upper Bound -.2901

5% Trimmed Mean -.8419

Median -1.0000

Variance 1.895

Std. Deviation 1.37673

Minimum -4.00

Maximum 2.00

Range 6.00

Interquartile Range 2.00

Skewness .100 .456

Kurtosis .533 .887

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

differenceQ2 .160 26 .086 .940 26 .136

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction




Question #6


Cases

Valid Missing Total


differenceQ6 26 81.3% 6 18.8% 32 100.0%

Descriptives


differenceQ6

Mean -.8077 .31874


Mean

Lower Bound -1.4642

Upper Bound -.1512


Median -1.0000

Variance 2.642


Minimum -4.00

Maximum 3.00

Range 7.00


Skewness .209 .456

Kurtosis .105 .887

Tests of Normality



differenceQ6 .156 26 .105 .960 26 .382





Question #15


Cases

Valid Missing Total


differenceQ15 26 81.3% 6 18.8% 32 100.0%

Descriptives


differenceQ15

Mean -.6923 .22027


Mean

Lower Bound -1.1460

Upper Bound -.2386


Median -1.0000

Variance 1.262


Minimum -3.00

Maximum 3.00

Range 6.00


Skewness 1.166 .456

Kurtosis 4.048 .887

Tests of Normality



differenceQ15 .262 26 .000 .842 26 .001




Documents

Registered Nurses Evaluation of the Addition of ...walker/statistics/Nursing... · This study investigated if Registered Nurses (RNs) working in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and