Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background High center procedural volume has been shown to reduce postoperative mortality (POM); however, the cause of POM has been poorly studied previously. The aim of this study was to define the pattern of POM and major morbidity in relation to center procedural volume. Methods Data from 2,944 consecutive adult patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in 30 centers between 2000 and 2010 were retrospectively collected. Data between patients who suffered 30-day POM were compared with those who did not. Factors associated with POM were identified using binary logistic regression, with propensity matching to compare low- (LV) and high-volume (HV) centers. Results The 30-day and in-hospital POM rates were 5.0 and 7.3 %, respectively. Pulmonary complications were the most common, affecting 38.1 % of patients, followed by surgical site infection (15.5 %), cardiovascular complications (11.2 %), and anastomotic leak (10.2 %). Factors that were independently associated with 30-day POM included American Society of Anesthesiologists grade IV, LV center, anastomotic leak, pulmonary, cardiovascular and neurological complications, and R2 resection margin status. Surgical complications preceded POM in approximately 30 % of patients compared to medically-related causes in 68 %. Propensity-matched analysis demonstrated LV centers were significantly associated with increased 30-day POM, and POM secondary to anastomotic leak, and pulmonary- and cardiac-related causes. Conclusions The results of this large, multicenter study provide further evidence to support the centralization of esophagectomy to HV centers, with a lower rate of morbidity and better infrastructure to deal with complications following major surgery preventing further mortality.

Introduction Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence that can help guide evidence‐informed decisions in nursing practice, education, and even health policy. Systematic review publications have increased from a sporadic few in 1980s to more than 10,000 systematic reviews published every year and around 30,000 registered in prospective registries. Methods A cross‐sectional design and a variety of data sources were triangulated to identify the journals from which systematic reviews would be evaluated for adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 reporting guidelines and scope. Specifically, this study used the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines to assess the reporting of the introduction, methods, information sources and search strategy, study selection process, quality/bias assessments, and results and discussion aspects of the included systematic reviews. Results Upon review of the 215 systematic reviews published in 10 top‐tier journals in the field of nursing in 2019 and 2020, this study identified several opportunities to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in the context of the 2020 PRISMA statement. Areas of priority for reporting include the following key areas: (1) information sources, (2) search strategies, (3) study selection process, (4) bias reporting, (5) explicit discussion of the implications to policy, and lastly, the need for (6) prospective protocol registration. Discussion The use of the PRISMA 2020 guidelines by authors, peer reviewers, and editors can help to ensure the transparent and detailed reporting of systematic reviews published in the nursing literature. Clinical Relevance Systematic reviews are considered strong research evidence that can guide evidence‐based practice and even clinical decision‐making. This paper addresses some common methodological and process issues among systematic reviews that can guide clinicians and practitioners to be more critical in appraising research evidence that can shape nursing practice.

An aging population with underlying health conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes, is at high risk for infections, including pneumonia, influenza, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In particular, the number of individuals in skilled nursing and long-term care facilities is increasing and older adults are at greatest risk. Research reveals these infections can lead to sepsis, septic shock, and death unless detected early through a sepsis screening process. The current quality improvement project demonstrates the capabilities of an early sepsis recognition screening tool in a skilled nursing facility and explores process changes required to operate facilities with high quality care. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 47(8), 37–44.]

Other issues concern when evaluations are distributed, the format in which they are distributed, how much time students are given to complete evaluations, and how many evaluations they are asked to complete at any one time. Because of the high-stakes nature of student evaluations, interest in finding solutions to these issues is high, resulting in extensive literature, ranging from anecdotal reports of personal experiences to carefully designed studies intended to identify best practices. The ultimate purpose of the project was to offer guidelines that could increase response rates of student evaluations while helping to ensure that such evaluations provide thoughtful feedback that serves to enhance the pedagogical expertise of instructors and strengthens course design and implementation to meet both student learning needs and program outcomes. [...]our systematic review revealed the same things Annan, Tratnack, Rubenstein, Metzler-Sawin, and Hulton (2013) reported from their integrative review of student evaluations of teaching: * Students who expected a higher grade were more likely to provide higher ratings. * Students who attended class provided higher ratings. * Undergraduates are more critical of faculty than graduate students. * Online classes received lower ratings than face-to-face ones. * Students reported writing untrue things on their evaluations. * Larger class size was associated with lower ratings. * Courses with heavy workloads had lower ratings. [...]dialogue might address such elements as the clarity of course and teacher expectations, the purpose of the various assessment methods used, the clarity of evaluation criteria, and the relevance of the class or online topics addressed. * Would faculty be able to better demonstrate their successes and innovations as teachers by providing reappointment, promotion, and tenure reviewers with narratives about how they planned and implemented the course, the innovations they used, and their degree of satisfaction with the outcomes, rather than merely submitting a number (e.g., 3.48 on a 4.0 scale) that summarizes the \"bubbles\" students have selected on an evaluation tool?

Care in the hospital is hazardous. Harm in the hospital may prolong hospitalization, increase suffering, result in death, and increase costs of care. Although the interprofessional team is critical to eliminating hazards that may result in adverse events to patients, professional students' formal education may not prepare them adequately for this role. To determine if medical and nursing students can identify hazards of hospitalization that could result in harm to patients and to detect differences between professions in the types of hazards identified. Mixed-methods observational study of graduating nursing (n = 51) and medical (n = 93) students who completed two \"Room of Horrors\" simulations to identify patient safety hazards. Qualitative analysis was used to extract themes from students' written hazard descriptions. Fisher's exact test was used to determine differences in frequency of hazards identified between groups. Identification of hazards by students was low: 66% did not identify missing personal protective equipment for a patient on contact isolation, and 58% did not identify a medication administration error (medication hanging for a patient with similar name). Interprofessional differences existed in how hazards were identified: medical students noted that restraints were not indicated (73 vs. 2%, P < 0.001), whereas nursing students noted that there was no order for the restraints (58.5 vs. 0%, P < 0.0001). Nursing students discovered more issues with malfunctioning or incorrectly used equipment than medical students. Teams performed better than individuals, especially for hazards in the second simulation that were similar to those in the first: need to replace a central line with erythema (73% teams identified) versus need to replace a peripheral intravenous line (10% individuals, P < 0.0001). Nevertheless, teams of students missed many intensive care unit-specific hazards: 54% failed to identify the presence of pressure ulcers; 85% did not notice high tidal volumes on the ventilator; and 90% did not identify the absence of missing spontaneous awakening/breathing trials and absent stress ulcer prophylaxis. Graduating nursing and medical students missed several hazards of hospitalization, especially those related to the intensive care unit. Orientation for residents and new nurses should include education on hospitalization hazards. Ideally, this orientation should be interprofessional to allow appreciation for each other's roles and responsibilities.

> Nurses make many and exceptional contributions to the health and well-being of society.> The scholarship on nursing's unique practice contributions must be shared with nurses and the broader healthcare community.> A concise resource for disseminating nursing's important work within the contexts of literature reviews, research reports, quality improvement projects, and evidence-based practice manuscripts is provided.> Disseminating timely and relevant findings about nursing practice enriches the nursing profession and consequently improves the health of humanity.

The purpose of this article is to describe the outcomes of a systematic review of educational programs and strategies for developing the writing skills of nursing students and nurses. Of 728 screened citations, 80 articles were included in the review. Writing assignments in nursing courses were the most common, followed by strategies for writing across the curriculum and specific courses to improve the writing skills of nursing students. To improve nurses’ writing skills, workshops were used most frequently. Only 28 (35%) of the articles were databased, and most articles described the writing program, strategy, or assignment but did not evaluate its effectiveness. [The purpose of this article is to describe the outcomes of a systematic review of educational programs and strategies for developing the writing skills of nursing students and nurses. Of 728 screened citations, 80 articles were included in the review. Writing assignments in nursing courses were the most common, followed by strategies for writing across the curriculum and specific courses to improve the writing skills of nursing students. To improve nurses’ writing skills, workshops were used most frequently. Only 28 (35%) of the articles were databased, and most articles described the writing program, strategy, or assignment but did not evaluate its effectiveness. [ J Nurs Educ. 2015;54(1):28–34.]

Communication Centers: A Theory-Based Guide to Training and Management offers advice based on extant research and best practices to both faculty who are asked to develop a communication center and for directors of established centers. Broken into easily understood parts, Turner and Sheckels begin with the development of communication centers, offering guidance on the history of centers, how to start a center, and, in a contribution by Kyle Love, creative approaches to marketing. They provide a communication perspective on selecting and training tutors, and then address how to train the tutors in their tasks of helping students with invention, disposition, style, memory, and delivery as well as presentation aids, including consideration of special situations and diverse populations. The authors explore ways to broaden the vision for communication centers, and conclude with chapters on techniques for assessment by Marlene Preston and on the rich rhetorical roots of communication centers by Linda Hobgood. The volume concludes with appendixes on guidelines for directors and for certification of tutor training programs. Communication Centers is a valuable resource for scholars in any stage of developing or improving a communication center at their university.

Workshops have been described in the literature as a strategy for preparing nurses to publish their work and develop their writing skills. Articles about the use of workshops for these purposes have not been integrated systematically. Seventeen articles were included in the current review. The workshop method has been found to be effective for preparing nurses to write for publication and for improving nurses’ and nursing students’ writing skills. However, workshops must be combined with one-to-one mentoring and feedback on writing to be successful. 2015;46(8):364–369. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2015;46(8):364–369.

By the end of primary school, students are confronted with expository texts known for their high proportion of domain-specific academic vocabulary words. These words usually comprise Greek or Latin roots in their internal structure. Recent findings showed that knowledge of Greek and Latin roots is related to reading comprehension. However, no study has investigated such a relationship in a francophone context. Therefore, the present study sought to measure Greek and Latin roots’ relation to reading comprehension among French 6th graders. To do so, 40 participants were administrated an experimental task on Greek and Latin roots knowledge and a reading comprehension standardized subset test. Variables related to reading comprehension, such as morphological awareness, vocabulary breadth, word reading fluency, oral comprehension, and working memory were also measured. Results showed that knowledge of Greek and Latin roots significantly predicted variation of reading comprehension. This paper discusses scientific and educational implications of this finding.