Abstract
Purpose: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was designed for use in a wide range of clinical environments with staff that had no special training (Teasdale and Jennett 1974). Evidence (Waterhouse 2007 and 2008) suggests however that there are ongoing problems with the use of the GCS assessment, and the impact that this might have on patient outcome is unknown. Variations in practice have been found in all areas, including the neurological specialties wards, however the skill level of nursing staff in non neurological areas is concerning with inconsistency in practice. The purpose of this project was to explore the use of the GCS in the non neurological clinical areas - to determine whether registered nurses felt confident in using the scale to assess patients with neurologic deterioration. Methods: A mixed methods methodology was used with two phases. Registered nurses from a metropolitan Sydney Hospital were recruited to the study. The first phase asked participants to complete an existing survey (Waterhouse 2008). Following analysis of the survey data, questions were developed and used in the phase two focus group. Results: The results demonstrated that the participants in the non neurological clinical areas had significant gaps in their education and training. Furthermore because the participants did not routinely assess patients using the GCS in the non neurological areas, a lack of skill refinement led to a knowledge and practice deficit. Incomplete skill development meant that the participants did not feel confident in using the GCS to assess patients with neurological dysfunction. In fact, participants were confused regarding the use of the GCS, and this affected how they made clinical decisions. This was significant because timely identification of neurological deterioration was crucial to patient survival. Conclusion: Recommendations for practice include more attention to skill development and importantly opportunities for training, refinement and reinforcement of the GCS.
Sigma Membership
Unknown
Type
Presentation
Format Type
Text-based Document
Study Design/Type
N/A
Research Approach
N/A
Keywords:
Glasgow Coma Scale, Skill Development, Patient Assessment
Recommended Citation
Thornley, Tracey and Rullis, Lauren, "Using the Glasgow Coma Scale in Non-Neurological Clinical Areas" (2012). INRC (Congress). 199.
https://www.sigmarepository.org/inrc/2012/presentations_2012/199
Conference Name
23rd International Nursing Research Congress
Conference Host
Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Location
Brisbane, Australia
Conference Year
2012
Rights Holder
All rights reserved by the author(s) and/or publisher(s) listed in this item record unless relinquished in whole or part by a rights notation or a Creative Commons License present in this item record.
All permission requests should be directed accordingly and not to the Sigma Repository.
All submitting authors or publishers have affirmed that when using material in their work where they do not own copyright, they have obtained permission of the copyright holder prior to submission and the rights holder has been acknowledged as necessary.
Acquisition
Proxy-submission
Using the Glasgow Coma Scale in Non-Neurological Clinical Areas
Brisbane, Australia
Purpose: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was designed for use in a wide range of clinical environments with staff that had no special training (Teasdale and Jennett 1974). Evidence (Waterhouse 2007 and 2008) suggests however that there are ongoing problems with the use of the GCS assessment, and the impact that this might have on patient outcome is unknown. Variations in practice have been found in all areas, including the neurological specialties wards, however the skill level of nursing staff in non neurological areas is concerning with inconsistency in practice. The purpose of this project was to explore the use of the GCS in the non neurological clinical areas - to determine whether registered nurses felt confident in using the scale to assess patients with neurologic deterioration. Methods: A mixed methods methodology was used with two phases. Registered nurses from a metropolitan Sydney Hospital were recruited to the study. The first phase asked participants to complete an existing survey (Waterhouse 2008). Following analysis of the survey data, questions were developed and used in the phase two focus group. Results: The results demonstrated that the participants in the non neurological clinical areas had significant gaps in their education and training. Furthermore because the participants did not routinely assess patients using the GCS in the non neurological areas, a lack of skill refinement led to a knowledge and practice deficit. Incomplete skill development meant that the participants did not feel confident in using the GCS to assess patients with neurological dysfunction. In fact, participants were confused regarding the use of the GCS, and this affected how they made clinical decisions. This was significant because timely identification of neurological deterioration was crucial to patient survival. Conclusion: Recommendations for practice include more attention to skill development and importantly opportunities for training, refinement and reinforcement of the GCS.