IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i5-6p640-661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review of observational instruments used to assess nurses' skills in patient mobilisation

Author

Listed:
  • Heidrun Gattinger
  • Minna Stolt
  • Virpi Hantikainen
  • Sascha Köpke
  • Beate Senn
  • Helena Leino‐Kilpi

Abstract

Aims and objectives The aim of this study was to identify and describe the existing observation instruments that are used to assess nurses' skills in patient mobilisation and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the included instruments. Background Structured knowledge about instruments for assessing nurses' skills in patient mobilisation is limited. Design Systematic review. Methods Studies were identified via electronic database searches and reference lists and were included based on the eligibility criteria. Data regarding the type of instrument, the number of items/domains and the psychometric properties of the instruments were extracted, and the quality of the instruments were appraised according to Zwakhalen et al.'s (BMC Geriatrics, 2006) proposed criteria. Results A total of 26 studies, reporting on 16 instruments, were included in this review. The instruments differed in terms of: (1) type of patient‐mobilisation task, (2) focus of the instrument, (3) level of structure and (4) use by the observer. Most of the instruments were developed and used in evaluation studies that measured nurses' mobilisation techniques as an outcome of an educational intervention. The total quality score of the included instruments varied between 6–11 points out of a maximum quality score of 19. Conclusion Although patient mobilisation is part of nurses' everyday work, we suggest from the results of this review that no common consensus exists about the best way to perform patient‐mobilisation tasks. The results from this study further show that no instrument measured all of the important aspects of effective patient mobilisation. Relevance for clinical practice Most of the instruments that were reviewed were able to detect differences in patient‐mobilisation techniques. However, convincing evidence is lacking with regard to the content, psychometric properties and practicability of these instruments for use in clinical practice. We suggest the development and validation of a new comprehensive instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Heidrun Gattinger & Minna Stolt & Virpi Hantikainen & Sascha Köpke & Beate Senn & Helena Leino‐Kilpi, 2015. "A systematic review of observational instruments used to assess nurses' skills in patient mobilisation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5-6), pages 640-661, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:5-6:p:640-661
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12689
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12689?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melinda Jaromi & Andrea Nemeth & Janos Kranicz & Tamas Laczko & Jozsef Betlehem, 2012. "Treatment and ergonomics training of work‐related lower back pain and body posture problems for nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(11‐12), pages 1776-1784, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ahmad H. Alghadir & Hani Al-Abbad & Syamala Buragadda & Amir Iqbal, 2021. "Influence of Work-Related Safety and Health Guidelines on Knowledge and Prevalence of Occupational Back Pain among Rehabilitation Nurses in Saudi Arabia: A 6-Month Follow-Up Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-10, August.
    2. Melinda Járomi & Aniko Kukla & Brigitta Szilágyi & Ágnes Simon‐Ugron & Viktória Kovácsné Bobály & Alexandra Makai & Pawel Linek & Pongrác Ács & Eleonóra Leidecker, 2018. "Back School programme for nurses has reduced low back pain levels: A randomised controlled trial," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 895-902, March.
    3. María Blanco-Morales & Vanesa Abuín-Porras & Carlos Romero-Morales & Mónica de la Cueva-Reguera & Blanca De-La-Cruz-Torres & Isabel Rodríguez-Costa, 2020. "Implementation of a Classroom Program of Physiotherapy among Spanish Adolescents with Back Pain: A Collaborative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-12, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:5-6:p:640-661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.