1. Home Healthcare Workers' Occupational Exposures
Elizabeth Bien, Gordon Gillespie, Kermit Davis Home Healthc Now . 2020 Sep/Oct;38(5):247-253. doi: 10.1097/NHH.0000000000000891.
Home healthcare workers (HHCWs) belong to one of the fastest growing industries and have an unpredictable work environment, potentiating their risk of exposures to occupational hazards. More patients seeking care for chronic health conditions, and improvements in technology and medical advancements are allowing more complex patient care to be provided at home. A comprehensive integrative review was completed, identifying nine articles that provide an overview of the occupational hazards HHCWs face. Analysis of the articles indicates occupational hazards are similar across studies. Occupational exposures reported by HHCWs align within all the studies and include exposures to blood, saliva, dangerous conditions walking to and within the home, secondhand smoke, aggressive pets, violence, and ergonomic concerns. These studies have been methodologically limited to self-reports, including surveys, interviews, and focus groups but include quantitative and qualitative data. Future research can further describe and identify specific occupational exposures and health hazards, subsequently leading to modifications to protect the health and safety of HHCWs, personal care workers, and the informal caregivers who provide care in the home.
2. Comparative Evaluation of Orthostatic Hypotension in Patients with Diabetic Nephropathy
Ayşegül Yabacı, Pinar Soysal, Rümeyza Kazancıoğlu, Meltem Gürsu, A Serra Artan, Ömer C Elçioğlu, Gamze Aytaş, Semra Özçelik, Kadir Bilgi Kidney Blood Press Res . 2021;46(5):574-580. doi: 10.1159/000517316.
Introduction:Orthostatic hypotension (OH) affects 5-20% of the population. Our study investigates the presence of OH in diabetic nephropathy (DNP) patients and the factors affecting OH in comparison with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (NDCKD) patients.Method:Patients presented to the nephrology clinic, and those who consented were included in the study. DNP was defined by kidney biopsy and/or clinical criteria. NDCKD patients of the same sex, age, and eGFR were matched to DNP patients. Demographic parameters and medications were obtained from the records. OH was determined by Mayo clinic criteria. The same researcher used an electronic device to measure blood pressure (BP). All samples were taken and analyzed the same day for biochemical and hematologic parameters and albuminuria.Results:112 (51 F, 61 M, mean age: 62.56 ± 9.35 years) DNP and 94 (40 F, 54 M, mean age: 62.23 ± 10.08 years) NDCKD patients were included. There was no significant difference between DNP and NDCKD groups in terms of OH prevalence (70.5 vs. 61.7%, p = 0.181). Male patients had significantly higher OH prevalence than female patients (74.7 vs. 60.0%, p = 0.026). There was no significant difference in change in systolic BP between the groups (24.00 [10.00-32.00] mm Hg vs. 24.00 [13.75-30.25] mm Hg, p = 0.797), but the change in diastolic BP was significantly higher in the DNP group (8.00 [2.00-13.00] mm Hg vs. 6.00 [2.00-9.00] mm Hg, p = 0.025). In the DNP group, patients with OH had significantly higher uric acid levels than those without OH (7.18 ± 1.55 vs. 6.36 ± 1.65 mg/dL, p = 0.017). And, 73.7% of patients on calcium channel blockers developed OH (p = 0.015), and OH developed in 80.6% of 36 patients on alpha-blockers (p = 0.049).Conclusion:OH prevalence is very high in CKD, and etiology of CKD does not have a statistically significant effect on the frequency of OH, despite a difference that could be meaningful clinically. Therefore, patients with CKD are checked for OH, with or without concurrent diabetes mellitus. Evaluation of postural BP changes should be a part of nephrology practice.
3. Doctor of nursing practice (DNP) degree in the United States: Reflecting, readjusting, and getting back on track
Lorraine Frazier, Linda D Norman, Marion E Broome, Ann Kurth, Antonia M Villarruel, Carol M Musil, Kathy H Rideout, Linda A McCauley, Rose Hayes Nurs Outlook . 2020 Jul-Aug;68(4):494-503. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2020.03.008.
Background:In 2004, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) called for all nursing schools to phase out master's-level preparation for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and transition to doctor of nursing practice (DNP) preparation only by 2015. Today, five years after the AACN's deadline, nursing has not yet adopted a universal DNP standard for APRN practice entry.Purpose:The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors influencing the ability of nursing schools to implement a universal DNP standard for APRNs.Methods:Deans from top-ranked nursing schools explore the current state of the DNP degree in the US. The authors draw upon their collective experience as national leaders in academic nursing, long-time influencers on this debate, and heads of DNP programs themselves. This insight is combined with a synthesis of the literature and analysis of previously unpublished data from the AACN on trends in nursing doctoral education.Findings:This paper highlights issues such as the long history of inconsistency (in messaging, curricula, etc.) surrounding the DNP, certification and accreditation challenges, cost barriers, and more. The authors apply COVID-19 as a case study to help place DNP graduates within a real-world context for health system stakeholders whose buy-in is essential for the success of this professional transition.Discussion:This paper describes the DNP's standing in today's professional environment and advances the conversation on key barriers to its adoption. Insights are shared regarding critical next steps to ensure national acceptance of the DNP as nursing's terminal practice degree.
