2018, Vol.8, No.2

Global Health and Nursing 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.85

pISSN : 2233-5560 / eISSN : 2671-5554
https://journal.kci.go.kr/rins

Purpose : This study aimed to compare the knowledge, attitude, and practice related to handwashing among undergraduate students majoring and not majoring in health science. Methods : This descriptive study included 188 undergraduate students with 100 majoring and 88 not majoring in health science. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and they were analyzed with the IBM SPSS 24.0 program using descriptive statistics, t-tests, Pearson’s correlation coefficients and a multiple regression. Results : Mean scores on knowledge and attitude toward handwashing were 13.86(±1.56) and 21.05(±2.34) respectively in students majoring health science, whereas the same were 13.22(±1.73) and 19.76(±2.24) in students not majoring health science respectively. In both groups, there was significant correlations between knowledge and attitude(r=.32, p<.001; r=.33, p=.002), and between attitude and practice (r=.27, p=.006; r=.40, p<.001) respectively. Attitude toward handwashing (=0.20, p=.028), experience of education about handwashing (=0.33, p<.001) and perception about health status (=-0.23, p=.014) were significant predictors of handwashing practice in students majoring health science. On the other hand, only attitude toward handwashing (=0.37, p<.001) was a significant predictor of handwashing practice in students not majoring health science. Conclusion : The present results reveal the importance continuing various educational programs on handwashing and the need to identify their longitudinal effects to improve handwashing practice among students majoring in health science. Additionally, when developing strategies to improve handwashing habits, we need to consider factors that could help change attitudes toward handwashing.

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the severity of patients’ abdominal pain symptom during and post-colonoscopy under conscious sedation and to determine associations between abdominal pain and demographic and colonoscopic characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional study was conducted on 115 outpatients undergoing colonoscopy under conscious sedation in a single tertiary hospital. Pain symptom was evaluated 10 times through nonverbal behavioral observation tool with score from 0 to 20. Pain severity was analyzed with descriptive statistics, and abdominal pain-related factors were determined via multiple logistic regression. Results: Mean peak pain score was 7.43 out of 20 points during colonoscopy and 34 patients (29.6%) showed peak pain score of over 10 points. Based on multiple logistic regression, female gender (odds ratio=2.85), concern before colonoscopy (odds ratio=1.02), and time to cecum (odds ratio=1.12) were significantly related with abdominal pain during colonoscopy under conscious sedation. Conclusions: Based on the results obtained, nurses should inform colonoscopy candidates of potential abdominal pain during colonoscopy under conscious sedation. In addition, nurses should consider nursing interventions including warm pack application to effectively relieve abdominal pain during colonoscopy in candidates with presence of risk factors.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify the rate of discrepancy between nurses’ subjective and objective assessment of delirium in elderly patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and to explore factors influencing the discrepancy. Methods: Using a survey design, a total of 91 elderly patients and 47 nurses were recruited from three ICUs in C Hospital. While ICU nurses subjectively assessed prevalence of delirium in their patients, the researcher used the Confusion Assessment Method in the ICU (CAM-ICU) tool at the same time. Medical records were reviewed for participants’ demographic and disease-related characteristics. The nurses’ level of knowledge about delirium assessment was examined. Results: Twenty-seven percent of patients had delirium according to CAM-ICU assessment and the discrepancy rate between CAM-ICU and subjective assessments was 18.7% (χ2=21.648, p<.001): 2.2% for false positives, and 16.5% for false negatives. Patient factors influencing the discrepancy between delirium assessment methods were using restraints, as well as lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores and Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores, while a nurse factor was shorter length of time working in an ICU. Conclusion: The discrepancy rate was 18.7% with 16.5% for false negatives. An education program is necessary for nurses to improve their knowledge of symptom assessment for delirium and to receive training in the use of objective tools for delirium assessment.