August 25, 2020


Welcome to the new KUSP FYI!
The layout has changed but the content is the same.
There is less scrolling and the content is still organized by categories and you can navigate to those categories using the links in the menu bar above:

For publications, click on the downwards arrow and you can navigate to the literature that interests you:

At the bottom of each page, click on the Back to top of page link to easily get back to the navigation bar.

Give this new format a try. But this may also be a good time to rethink how this newsletter is done. If you have any thoughts/suggestions, please email me.

Globe and Mail reports on staffing issues in LTC
Understaffing turned seniors’ homes into COVID-19 danger zones, health workers say. What can be done to fix that?

New Article by Alison Hutchinson
Use of an audit with feedback implementation strategy to promote medication error reporting by nurses.
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

A. M. Hutchinson, V. Brotto, A. Chapman, A. E. Sales, M. Mohebbi and T. K. Bucknall.
J Clin Nurs 2020 Aug 5
To outline the development and effect of an audit with feedback implementation strategy that intended to increase the rate of voluntary medication error reporting by nurses. BACKGROUND: Medication errors are a serious global health issue. Audit with feedback is a widely-used implementation strategy that has potential to modify nurses’ reporting behaviour and improve medication error reporting rates. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental implementation study (fulfilling the TIDieR checklist) with two pairs of matched wards at a private hospital in Australia was conducted from March 2015-September 2016. One ward from each pair was randomised to either the intervention or control group. METHOD: Nurses within intervention wards received audit with feedback on a quarterly basis over a 12-month implementation period. Control wards underwent quarterly audits only (without feedback). Feedback consisted of a one-page infographic poster, with content based on medication error data obtained from audits and the hospitals’ risk management system (RiskMan). The primary outcome – rate of medication errors reported per month – was determined in both groups at pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases. Differences between groups were compared using generalised linear mixed models with Poisson distribution and log link. RESULTS: A non-significant intervention effect was found for rate of medication errors reported per month. Interestingly, when combining data from both groups, a significant increasing time trend was observed for medication errors reported per month across pre-implementation and implementation phases (80% increase). CONCLUSIONS: The audit with feedback strategy developed in the present study did not effectively influence the voluntary reporting of medication errors by nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Despite the lack of intervention effects, the use of a published checklist to optimise the reporting quality of this study will contribute to the field by furthering the understanding of how to enhance audit with feedback implementation strategies for nurses.

New Article by Greta Cummings
Predictors of toxic leadership behaviour among nurse managers: A cross-sectional study
Access if not affiliated with University of Alberta

L. J. Labrague, J. Lorica, C. E. Nwafor and G. G. Cummings.
J Nurs Manag 2020 Aug 12
To identify predictors of toxic leadership behaviour in nurse managers. BACKGROUND: Toxic leadership is becoming increasingly prevalent in nursing; however, the literature provides very limited evidence of the different factors that promote toxic leadership behaviour in nurse managers. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional design was used. Two hundred and forty nurse managers from ten hospitals in Central Philippines were included in the study. Data were collected using the Nurse Information Form and the Toxic Leadership Behaviours of Nurse Managers Scale (ToxBH-NM). Hierarchical multiple regression was used to analyse the data collected. RESULTS: The mean of average item score of the ToxBH-NM was 1.250 (SD = 0.470). Multiple regression analyses identified the years of experience in a managerial role (β = -0.165, p = 0.031), job status (part time) (β = 0.177, p = 0.002), ward census (30 patients, 40 patients, and above 40 patients) [(β = 0.231, p = 0.005); (β = 0.345, p 3 units) [(β = 0.292, p < 0.001); (β = 0.235, p < 0.001), hospital type (private hospital) (β = 0.271, p = 0.007), and hospital level (secondary hospitals) (β = 0.226, p = 0.036) predicted toxic leadership behaviour in nurse managers. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nurse managers were appraised as non-toxic leaders. Nurse Managers who held part time job status, had lower experience in the managerial role, and those who were assigned in wards or units with high patient admission reported increased toxic leadership behaviours. Further, nurse managers who managed more than 2 units, those who were employed in private hospitals, and those who worked in secondary hospitals reported increased toxic leadership behaviours. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurse administrators can consider the different predictors identified when planning and developing leadership interventions and organizational strategies (e.g., limiting the number of units per nurse manager, provision of full time job employment, assignment of assistant nurse managers, formulation of policy specific to managing toxic behaviours) may assist in the determent of toxic behaviours in nurse managers.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.