Elements of a Good Nursing Report

Elements of a Good Nursing ReportIntroductionThe mechanism of the breast feeding topic is a comparatively old-fashioned one. Certainly it was routinely used in the pre-Nightingale era of nursing and at that place are reports of much(prenominal) formal handover mechanisms in Chaucer and other medieval writings (Carrick P 2000). As the nursing profession has evolved over time, the requirements, expectations, demands and indeed the procedures employed in the giving of the nursing report, have also evolved and become more formalised. ( mason T et al 2003). The giving of the report can be a very useful procedure on many different levels. Obviously there is the give of knowledge between members of the nursing team, but the report also has the potential of serving more subtle purposes such as increasing team bonding, team motivation, engendering of good enough working invests and increasing patient em passagey amongst the whole nursing team. It also can serve the purpose of a foru m for the interchange of ideas between captain members of mental faculty. (Yura H et al. 1998). Other sources suggest that the peer mechanical press experienced by the new or student nurse, can shape their own practice by detect the attention to detail (or otherwise) as the report is presented. (Fawcett J 2005)We note that the procedure has the potential for these purposes, as with all processes that involve human input, there is inevitably an inbuilt variability of process. It is rarely perfect and a number of studies have shown that its standard and content can vary across a spectrum from excellent to abysmal (RCN.2003)If we postulate the evidence base for this statement, we can beat support in two landmark studies that have been completed. The two authors ( both(prenominal) Danes) coincidentally produced studies which were published in 1992 (Ljukkonen A 1992) (Kihlgren et al 1992). The latter study was structured in a way that analysed the goal components of the nursing reports in several large hospitals over a three month period, it then offered a period of training on improving the content and delivery of the reports, and then remeasured the staff performance using the same set of quantity parameters.The motif itself is both long and detailed as well as being particularly analytical. To condense (and paraphrase) the findings of the initial section of the writing we can make the findings that the initial reports were found to beHighly task oriented and (it was noted that) the staff often discussed the patients reaction in vague and general terms without imparting any specific or useful info.The authors went on to comment that structure was frequently absent or minimal and the nursing process was seldom in evidence.After the superior feedback sessions, the second analysis period showed a marked change to the fundamental nature of the reports to the extent that they now included the observation that there wereMore messages per report after th e intervention compared to the control ward and the messages with psychosocial content had doubled. This was reflected in a greater appreciation and satisfaction on the part of the receiving nurses and a demonstrable improvement in team empathyWe note that the authors stated that in organising the mid-section training sessions they utilised the research work of Orlando (et al. 1989), who crystallised the essential elements of the nursing report into the basic concepts of prioritisation, confabulation and presentation skills, together with instruction of the important ingredients of the actual nursing report.The Ljukkonen (A 1992) paper has similar findings but was set in two nursing homes for the elderly where the authors found that the low turnover in patients was the prime reason for the decline in nursing report standards observed. The lack of trophic peer pressure was also considered to be a major relevant factor.The comments cited by Yura (regarding team cooking) earlier in t his essay have their origins in this paper. Charboyer (2001) expands them further with the suggestion that a vital part of the nursing process is the ability to interact with all of the other members of the nursing team, both in terms of hearing (learning) and expressing opinions.These two document effectively pose the unformulated question just what elements are ideally required in the definitive nursing report?. We can take the lead from the Kihlgren paper which considered the work of both Orlando and Dugan (1989) who analysed the essential elements of the nursing report and categorised them asPrioritising care and patient require.Communication Skills.Non-Judgemental Approach.The precursors of these elements were initially formulated in a paper published by Orlando in 1987 (Orlando I. J. 1987) who suggested that it was a fundamental function of the nursing process to prioritise the patients needs after elucidating them and use these sensed needs to instigate and plan an appropr iate course of action which could be presented at the formal nursing report. He conceded that such an analysis was a function of the individual and unique interaction between patient and healthcare professional (by implication, the nurse) and that the nurse should ideally use their communication and analytical skills to present their assessment to the professional colleagues.These concepts eventually evolved into Orlandos preposition that the backbone of the nursing report would be this analysis and prioritisation of the patients perceived needs and their presentation in a crystalline sequence. Orlando concludes his original paper with the comment that this plan should be enunciated and modified in accordance with the patients illness trajectory at to each one successive nursing report so that the stated goals can be achieved as expediently as possible.We have made earlier reference to the immenseness of good communication skills in the nursing report. It follows from our previo us discussions that the communications skills must also ideally be in evidence between the healthcare professional and the patient in order for the nursing report to have maximal relevance (Arnold et al 2004). The importance of this comment can be judged from the fact that interpersonal communication is considered to be one of the six core attributes in consideration of optimum personal effectiveness in the modern nurse manager (ICN 1998).The traits and deficiencies in the area of communication in general, identified by both Ljukkonen and Kihlgren, were studied in greater detail by Heinmann-Knoch (2005), who analysed the topic in direct parity to the nursing report in admirable detail and went on to suggest the mechanisms by which such deficiencies could be foretelled. If we accept, as Davies (et al. 2002) enunciates, that communication is a skill that is seldom innate or totally intuitive it has to be learned, acquired and actively practised.Other authors point to the fact that o ther common failings of the nursing report include elements such as stereotyping or judgementalism. (Brechin A et al. 2000). When such elements are found to be present they clearly cross not only professional boundaries but also moral and ethical boundaries as well. (Stowers K et al. 1999)Eye run into is an often overlooked element of professional interaction either between nurses themselves or between nurses and their patients. Eye contact implies attention and respect and can signal perceived degrees of dominance and submission in the pecking order (Hurley R 2006). Similarly lack of centre of attention contact can imply ignorance, confusion, indifference, and ineptitude (fieldsman A 2000). As a communication tool it can be used to advantage by the hot professional nurse both to elicit information from patients and also to ensure attentive listening in the nursing report situation. (Platt, F W et al. 1999) system speech is another often overlooked element in the art of communic ation. It has not received a great deal of overt scrutiny in the peer reviewed medical press but the majority of experienced healthcare professionals would attest to its value in both eliciting and conveying information (Edmondstone W M 1995). There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that body language and nonverbal communication has a greater ability to impart information relating to the sincerity of the speaker than the words they are using (Trimboil A et al. 1997), equally it can be used to advantage when trying either to elicit or to suppress a response from the recipient (Tomlinson J 1998).Reflection is a vital part of the learning process. It has been described and modified by many authors. Taylor (2000) suggests that it should be an active process embarked on after the event so that memories and perceptions of a situation can be rationalised and appropriate strategies considered for more optimal outcomes. Palmer (2005) observes that reflection is both a professiona l requirement and also a dynamic process whereby the practitioner will be prepared for any similar occurrences and can build a knowledge base to enhance his or her practice, and therefore grow as a professional. On a personal note I find that the Gibbs reflective cycle (Gibbs, G 1988 ) is both convenient, practical and usefulIt is beyond doubt that the nursing report, in its ideal form, should be carefully constructed, structured and prepared. It should address all of the needs of the patient not only the medical and nursing ones, but as Hendrick, (J. 2000) points out it should also address the more subtle needs of the patient such as their psychological, socio-economic or social needs as well, if they are appropriate. Its proper delivery is not just a matter of notice or the last item on the shift for the departing staff nurse, it is one of the fundamental tools of the nursing profession and needs to be prepared, considered and focussed before it is truly invoked. The messages that the nursing report conveys are not solely those messages that relate to the continued nursing care of the patients, but also those that speak to the professional expectations of the nurses. Those who listen to their peers delivering the nursing report in a professional and intelligent way are more likely to be indoctrinated with professional attitudes and ideals than those who view the report as scant(p) more than a nuisance at the beginning of their shift. (Clarke J E et al. 1997). The nurse who uses all of the tools of communication, including presentation, positive body language and meaningful eye contact together with clear unequivocal language is far more likely to make a positive and dynamic impression with her report than the nurse who simply puts together a few sentences relating to each patient. (Hewison, A. 2004)References Arnold Bloggs 2004Interpersonal Relationships Professional Communication Skills for NursesLondon London Meridian 2004Brechin A. Brown, H and Eby , M 2000Critical Practice in Health and Social CareOpen University, Milton Keynes. 2000Carrick P 2000Medical Ethics in the Ancient WorldGeorgetown University press 2000 ISBN 0878408495Chaboyer, Najman , Dunn 2001Cohesion among nurses a comparison of bedside vs. rush nurses perceptions in hospitals.Journal of Advanced Nursing 35 4, 526-532Clarke J E Copcutt L 1997Management for nurses and Healthcare Professionals.Edinburgh Churchill Livingstone 1997Davies Fox-Young 2002Validating a scope of nursing practice decision making frameworkInternational Journal of Nursing studies 39 , 1 , 85-93Edmondstone W M 1995 Cardiac chest pain does body language help the diagnosis? BMJ , Dec 1995 311 1660 1661Fawcett J 2005Contemporary Nursing Knowledge Analysis and Evaluation of Nursing Models and Theories, 2nd EditionBoston Davis Co 2005 ISBN 0-8036-1194-3Fielder A Book Sight Unseen BMJ , Jan 2000 320 66 Gibbs, G 1988Learning by doing A guide to Teaching and Learning methods EMU Oxford Brookes University, Oxford. 1988Heinmann-Knoch, Korte, heusinger, Klunder Knoch 2005Training of communication skills in stationary long care homesthe evaluation of a model project to develop communication skills and transfer it into practice Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2005 Feb 38 (1) 40-6.Hendrick, J. 2000 faithfulness and Ethics in Nursing and Health Care,London. Stanley Thornes 2000Hewison, A. 2004Management for Nurses and Health Professionals Theory into practice. Blackwell Science Oxford.Hurley R 2006 Ways of seeing BMJ , May 2006 332 1219 ICN 1998International Convention on NursingScope of nursing practiceGeneva ICN 1998Kihlgren, Lindsten, Norberg Karlsson 1992The content of the oral daily reports at a long-term ward before and after staff training in integrity promoting care.Scand J Caring Sci . 1992 6 (2) 105-12.Ljukkonen A 1992Contents of daily reports and nursing practice in 2 homes for the aged Hoitotiede. 1992 4 (5) 194-200.Mason T and Whitehead E (2003)Thinking Nu rsing.Open University. Maidenhead. 2003Orlando, I. J. 1987.Nursing in the 21st century Alternate paths.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 12 , 405-412 1987Orlando, I. J., Dugan, A. B. 1989.Independent and dependent path The fundamental issue for the nursing profession. Nursing and Health Care, 10 (2) , 77-80 1989Palmer 2005Palmer in Learning about reflection from the student Bulpitt and Martin Active Learning in high Education. 2005 6 207-217.Platt, F W Gordon G H 1999Field Guide to the Difficult Patient Interview 1999Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, pp 250 ISBN 0 7817 2044 3London Macmillian Press 1999RCN 2003RCN leadership Project 2003Defining NursingRCN Publication 001 983 Apr 2003Stowers K, Hughes R A, Carr A J. 1999Information exchange between patients and health professionals consultation styles of rheumatologists and nurse practitioners.Arthritis Rheum 1999 42 (suppl) 388 S.Taylor, E. 2000.construction upon the theoretical debate A critical review of the empirical studi es of Mezirows transformative learning theory.Adult Education Quarterly, 48 (1) , 34-59.Tomlinson J 1998 ABC of sexual health Taking a sexual history BMJ , Dec 1998 317 1573 1576Trimboli A, Walker M B 1997Journal of Nonverbal BehaviourPublisher Springer NetherlandsISSN 0191-5886 Paper 1573-3653inside 10.1007 / BF00990236Issue Volume 11 , Number 3 September 1997 Pages 180 190Yura H, Walsh M. 1998The nursing process. Assessing, planning, implementing, evaluating. 5th edition. Norwalk, CT Appleton Lange, 1998.