PURPOSE: To examine and describe perceived health status and depression symptoms among Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) survivors, and to examine their relationship during survivors' recovery phase. METHODS: A prospective design was used to test changeability of the key variables over a 1-month period for a cohort group of 82 post ACS patients, prior to their hospital discharge (Time 1) and at 4 weeks post discharge (Time 2). The revised version of Short Form-12 Health Survey and Beck Depression Inventory were used to measure the perceived health status and depression symptoms. The data were collected between 2003 and 2004. RESULTS: Perceived health status including mental health and physical health significantly improved over the 4-week period (t=-2.58, p < .05). Perceived health status during the hospitalization and length of hospital stay were significant predictors of depression symptoms during the early recovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' own perceptions about their health status need to be closely evaluated during the hospitalization in order to reduce the occurrences of later depression symptoms. Consequently, reducing depression symptoms and improving perceived health status should be addressed both in acute and chronic phases of ACS.
Acute Coronary Syndrome ; Cohort Studies ; Depression ; Health Surveys ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Mental Health ; Prospective Studies ; Survivors

INTRODUCTION: Critical thinking involves identifying problem(s), assessing resources, and generating possible solutions and allows clinical nurses to decide which solution is the most reasonable under the given circumstances, taking into consideration the "what ifs" and how they will affect the end result. This research was conducted to further understanding and identification of subjective factors in critical thinking in clinical nurses. METHODS: The research design was a Q-Methodological Approach. Q-population was formulated from a non-structured questionnaire and interviews from 17 experienced clinical nurses. Thirty selected Q-statements were sorted by 30 experienced clinical nurses. RESULTS: Four factors for critical thinking were identified: (1) Deductive reasoning based on causal relation, (2) Construction of an effective model based on patients' responses, (3) Formulating categories based on priorities for effective interventions, and (4) Judging validity of the situational significance on clinical performances. CONCLUSION: Critical thinking is an attitude and reasoning process. From this study, the frame of reference for clinical nurses in formulating critical thinking within the context of clinical settings is identified and indicates the way nurses utilize thinking skills when they care for patients and areas that need further exploration as nurses and faculty develop education systems to advance clinical performance competency.
Humans ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Research Design ; Thinking

Purpose: This study aimed to define and clarify the concept of colleague solidarity experienced by nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A hybrid model method was used to investigate the dimensions, attributes, and definitions of the concept. In the theoretical phase, 20 articles selected through literature review by including nursing and related disciplines were analyzed. For the fieldwork phase, in-depth interviews were conducted with nine nurses who took care of infected patients with COVID-19 at Infectious Diseases Specialized Hospital. Results: The dimensions identified were consistently observed in the field phase, however, more attributes were found newly from the fieldwork phase. In the final phase, the concept of colleague solidarity among the nurses was found to have three dimensions with nine attributes. The interaction dimension had four attributes as voluntary support, mutual respect, open communication, and virtuous circle. The motivation dimension had two attributes of sense of communion and calling. Lastly, the relationship dimension had three attributes of unity, mutually equal relationship, and comradeship. Conclusions This study is meaningful in observing how the concept of colleague solidarity, which is relatively unfamiliar to domestic nurses, appears in the clinical field during a national crisis and analyzing the concept.

Purpose: This study aimed at investigating the nutritional status, nutritional support, and nutritional indicators of critically ill patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygen (ECMO) in intensive care units (ICU). Methods: This descriptive study obtained data from the medical records of 37 patients who were treated using ECMO at a university hospital in Korea. The patients were admitted to the Korea University Anam Hospital ICU with acute or serious damage to vital organs from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016. Results: Although 32 patients (86.5%) were at a high risk of malnutrition, 26 patients (70.3%) were considered normal in terms of nutritional status by the nutritionist at the beginning of their ICU stay. However, after two weeks, nine patients had passed away and only one patient maintained normal status. Parenteral nutrition was started first but took 4.25 ± 6.95 days till initiation. Only eight patients (21.6%) were able to meet their requirement for both calories and protein. The group provided with adequate calorie and protein showed significantly longer use of the ECMO and respirator and longer ICU and total hospital stay than their counterparts. Normal levels of serum albumin and protein of the group at low-risk for malnutrition on the day of initiation of ECMO, which were significantly higher than the high-risk group, declined by the last day of ECMO leading to a lack of significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Considering that the nutritional indicators of patients deteriorated as the days on ECMO increased, more aggressive nutritional management to ensure adequate nutritional support should be emphasized from the beginning and throughout the ICU stay.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a colleague solidarity scale for nurses and to verify its validity and reliability. Methods: Initial items were extracted through an extensive literature review and in-depth interviews with twelve clinical nurses. These items were subjected to content validity testing by ten experts and face validity testing by five nurses.Subsequently, the final tool was developed using a validity and reliability test comprising 53 preliminary items. Survey data were collected from 548 hospital nurses. Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, four factors and 33 items were selected, yielding a total cumulative variance ratio of 66.7%. Through the confirmatory factor analysis, the final tool consisting of 4 factors and 31 items was developed. The factors were as follows: “mutually beneficial community,” “nurse identity.” “rigid organizational experience,” and “supportive interaction.” These factors were verified through convergent and discriminant validity testing. The internal consistency reliability was acceptable (Cronbach’s ⍺= .94). Conclusion This tool can serve as the basis for developing programs and strategies to strengthen solidarity among nurses by identifying the current level of colleague solidarity among hospital nurses and enhancing their understanding of it.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a colleague solidarity scale for nurses and to verify its validity and reliability. Methods: Initial items were extracted through an extensive literature review and in-depth interviews with twelve clinical nurses. These items were subjected to content validity testing by ten experts and face validity testing by five nurses.Subsequently, the final tool was developed using a validity and reliability test comprising 53 preliminary items. Survey data were collected from 548 hospital nurses. Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, four factors and 33 items were selected, yielding a total cumulative variance ratio of 66.7%. Through the confirmatory factor analysis, the final tool consisting of 4 factors and 31 items was developed. The factors were as follows: “mutually beneficial community,” “nurse identity.” “rigid organizational experience,” and “supportive interaction.” These factors were verified through convergent and discriminant validity testing. The internal consistency reliability was acceptable (Cronbach’s ⍺= .94). Conclusion This tool can serve as the basis for developing programs and strategies to strengthen solidarity among nurses by identifying the current level of colleague solidarity among hospital nurses and enhancing their understanding of it.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a colleague solidarity scale for nurses and to verify its validity and reliability. Methods: Initial items were extracted through an extensive literature review and in-depth interviews with twelve clinical nurses. These items were subjected to content validity testing by ten experts and face validity testing by five nurses.Subsequently, the final tool was developed using a validity and reliability test comprising 53 preliminary items. Survey data were collected from 548 hospital nurses. Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, four factors and 33 items were selected, yielding a total cumulative variance ratio of 66.7%. Through the confirmatory factor analysis, the final tool consisting of 4 factors and 31 items was developed. The factors were as follows: “mutually beneficial community,” “nurse identity.” “rigid organizational experience,” and “supportive interaction.” These factors were verified through convergent and discriminant validity testing. The internal consistency reliability was acceptable (Cronbach’s ⍺= .94). Conclusion This tool can serve as the basis for developing programs and strategies to strengthen solidarity among nurses by identifying the current level of colleague solidarity among hospital nurses and enhancing their understanding of it.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a colleague solidarity scale for nurses and to verify its validity and reliability. Methods: Initial items were extracted through an extensive literature review and in-depth interviews with twelve clinical nurses. These items were subjected to content validity testing by ten experts and face validity testing by five nurses.Subsequently, the final tool was developed using a validity and reliability test comprising 53 preliminary items. Survey data were collected from 548 hospital nurses. Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, four factors and 33 items were selected, yielding a total cumulative variance ratio of 66.7%. Through the confirmatory factor analysis, the final tool consisting of 4 factors and 31 items was developed. The factors were as follows: “mutually beneficial community,” “nurse identity.” “rigid organizational experience,” and “supportive interaction.” These factors were verified through convergent and discriminant validity testing. The internal consistency reliability was acceptable (Cronbach’s ⍺= .94). Conclusion This tool can serve as the basis for developing programs and strategies to strengthen solidarity among nurses by identifying the current level of colleague solidarity among hospital nurses and enhancing their understanding of it.

In the original publication, The authors found a mistake in funding statement. Also in the title page (1st affiliation) and main text, the authots would like to revise the affiliation name.

PURPOSE: This study compared the effects of robotic single-port cholecystectomy (RC) and 3-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) on patients' surgical pain, postoperative complications, and satisfaction. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients with gallbladder disease scheduled for either LC or RC were recruited. Each patient was followed up for 1 week after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Time stayed in operating room was longer in patients with RC, however their hospital stay was shorter than those with LC (t = 3.01, P = 0.003). Since patients with RC received more analgesics during the surgery (t = 3.98, P < 0.001), all participants' surgical pain level were analyzed by using analysis of covariance. Patients who underwent RC reported less surgical pain consistently at 6 hours and first day after surgery and 2 days and 1 week later than patients in the LC. Repeated measure analysis of variance also demonstrated that the RC with single-port might cause less pain throughout the postoperative period (F = 25.68, P < 0.001). Participants' conditions appeared stable without complications such as infection or bleeding regardless of the surgical type however, overall satisfaction with RC showed significantly higher than those with LC except for one item, “the cost of surgery.” CONCLUSION: These results suggested that the RC might be a better choice for people who concern about surgical pain and early hospital discharge. Since there were no differences in postoperative health status between the 2 groups, health care providers as an advocate can provide more reliable information to their patients.