• To recognise some of the factors that can make it challenging for nurses to access training and maintain competence in using medical devices
• To learn about development of an electronic medical device training passport that aims to better identify nurses’ training needs
• To understand the benefits of an electronic medical device training passport for nurses, nurse managers and clinical leaders
Background All nurses, particularly those working in critical care settings, are required to use medical devices when providing patient care. However, inconsistent practice and variations in documentation can make it challenging for nurses and nurse managers to identify what medical device training is required and when.
Aim To develop and evaluate the use of an electronic medical device training passport to identify the training needs of nurses in intensive care units (ICUs).
Method A pilot study was conducted in a multi-unit critical care department in London, England, to determine if the passport could make it easier to identify ICU nurses’ medical device training needs compared with existing practice. Nine participants were first asked to identify their needs using existing spreadsheets or paper records, then asked to identify them using the passport. The participants were also interviewed to identify their training requirements before and after using the passport. The data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.
Findings The electronic passport significantly improved identification of medical device training needs compared with paperwork or spreadsheets for all device groups, except for medical devices used on high dependency units (P≤0.005). However, there may be issues related to nurses’ behaviours and expectations, particularly that staff do not always recognise their need for training.
Conclusion The findings of this pilot study suggest that the use of an electronic medical device training passport has many benefits and could make it easier to identify ICU nurses’ training needs in clinical practice.
Nursing Management. 29, 4, 24-30. doi: 10.7748/nm.2021.e2024
CorrespondenceKellie-Jayne.Mohess@gstt.nhs.uk
Peer reviewThis article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software
Conflict of interestNone declared
PermissionTo reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com
Write for usFor information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com
For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/writeforus
or
Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now
Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more