nursing staff perspectives on oral care for neuroscience patients.

by:Cleanmo      2020-03-17
Abstract: due to motor and cognitive functions and side effects of treatment, patients with neuroscience often have poor health and related complications.
Improper oral care increases plaque deposition, resulting in inflammation, pain, and infection.
These patients often rely on nurses for oral hygiene.
In practice, nurses often delegate oral care to unauthorized personnel, including nursing assistants, technicians and student nurses.
Few studies have involved oral care interventions in patients with neuroscience.
This article identifies oral care interventions for nurses and undocumented nursing neuroscience patientscare deficits.
Designed survey instruments are used to obtain data from nurses in large hospitals and undocumented people working with neuroscience patients.
Participants answered questions about products and agents used in care, frequency of care, records of care, patient risk factors, and systematic support organizations such as supply.
Analyze data using frequency distribution.
The results of the study show that the choice of products and drugs used in oral care is not always based on evidence, the preferences of providers lead to changes in the type and frequency of care, and systematic problems affect care.
These findings suggest that more attention needs to be paid to oral care in patients with neuroscience.
Further research is needed on the relationship between oral care interventions and patient outcomes.
Hospitalized patients who are unable to provide their own oral care may not receive appropriate oral care and may receive treatment that causes or increases oral dryness (dry mouth;
Andson, Westglen, karsong, harsberg and Renford, 2002; Clarke, 1993;
Stiefel, Damron, Sowers, Velez, 2000).
Therefore, local tissue inflammation may occur due to increased plaque deposition, decreased saliva production, and decreased debris removal.
Inflammation of the tissue weakens the lining of the mucosa.
Rupture of the mucosal lining allows bacteria to enter the surrounding tissue and may result in local or systemic infection (Rakel, 1997;
Kite and Pearson, 1995).
Due to physical reasons, cognitive reasons, or the inability of both to perform adequate oral care, the risk of oral mucosal rupture and subsequent local and systemic problems may be higher.
Conventional oral care has been shown to reduce these risks (
Milne, Brady, Hunter, 2002; Roberts, 2000;
Liu Tian, Rui, Mu Shan, Okamoto, etc. , 2002).
Nervous system diseases that may lead to a decline in oral care capacity include stroke, Alzheimer\'s disease, Parkinson\'s disease, spinal cord injury, brain injury, and neurological muscle diseases such as MS, atrophy lateral soreness, and dukens\' muscle atrophy
This situation can lead to a decline in the patient\'s motor coordination ability, cognitive impairment, difficulty swallowing and other problems that lead to a decline in oral care ability.
In addition, drugs against dry oral side effects such as hypertension and anti-seizure drugs are often used to treat neurological diseases, thereby increasing the risk of rupture of oral mucosa and subsequently increasing the need for frequent oral care.
Among patients who rely on caregivers for personal care, an estimated 44%-
Oral care was inadequate for 65% of people.
In this percentage, more than 25% of people were diagnosed with neuroscience (Coleman, 2002;
Anderson and others. , 2002).
This article reports the results of a study that identifies oral care interventions performed by nurses and undocumented caregivers in patients with neuroscience
Nursing deficiencies and suggest interventions to improve oral care in neuroscience patients with risk of oral complications.
Four common causes of risk factors and current oral care procedures lead to rupture of oral mucosa in a population of patients with neuroscience: motor or cognitive deficits, orgodining muscle tissue or swallowing dysfunction, specific drugsAnderson and others. , 2002; McNeill, 2000; Milne et al. , 2002; Turner, 1996).
Sports and cognitive deficits lead to self-inability to provide hygienecare.
For example, patients without fine and rough motor skills may not be able to place toothpaste on a toothbrush, lift it to the mouth, or completely brush all surfaces inside the mouth.
Patients with cognitive impairment may not be able to realize the importance of good oral hygiene or remember to have regular oral care.
It is the responsibility of care to ensure that these patients receive appropriate oral care (Anderson and others. , 2002).
Motor dysfunction in neuroscience patients usually involves loss of sync and swallowing disorders in the oral and swallowing muscle tissue.
The existence of this problem makes it unsafe for patients to take oral medicine or nutrition, and requires patients to receive drugs and nutrition through nasal or gastric ducts.
Loss of chewing associated with reduced oral intake reduces the estimation of saliva and enzyme production, which often helps to clear debris and protect the oral flora of the mouth from infection (
Kostler, Hejna, Wenzel and Zielinski, 2001;
Squier & Kremer, 2001).
Neuroscience patients often have one or more common diseases that require oral dryness treatment, with or without sequelae
Drug treatment.
Anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-epilepsy drugs, anti-group agents, anti-depression drugs, steroids and diuretic drugs that are commonly taken (McNeill, 2000; Turner, 1996). Medication-
Mucosal damage caused by oral dryness
Finally, oxygen therapy and suction devices help with oral mucosa damage.
The drying effect of oxygen and the trauma associated with the removal of secretions and clear objects are in a dry environment in which microorganisms breed and previously healthy tissue degradation (McNeill; Turner).
Not only do the above causes work independently, but they also compound oral dryness, increasing the number of fragments, deposition of plaques, and growth of infectious microorganisms.
The resulting inflammation causes microorganisms to enter the gum tissue, resulting in an increase in the incidence of gum inflammation, colonization of the mouth and throat cavity, and infection of microorganisms, as well as local or systemic infections (
Kite & Pearson, 1995;
Miller and corny, 2001; Stiefel et al. , 2000).
Figure 1 provides an overview of the factors contributing to oral health damage. [
Figure 1 slightly]Impaired self-
Care and increased plaque deposition are issues that are easy to intervene with care.
Nursing intervention should first target the cause of self-interferencecare.
If we target the cause of self-interference
Care is not possible due to the severity or stage of the disease, and nurses should adopt interventions for plaque formation by providing oral care that patients do not need (
Temporary or permanent)
Provide for yourself.
Risk factors can be modified by both methods (Milne et al. , 2002; Roberts,2000; Yoneyama et al. , 2002).
Generally, nursing oral care practices include foam swabs soaked in water, amouthwash preparations, hydrogen-
Peroxide mixture, normal saline, chlorhexidine.
Foam cotton swab is very convenient and requires few settingsup andclean-
Time to complete tasks quickly (
Kite & Pearson, 1995; Roberts, 2000).
While the use of foam swabs is an acceptable practice, studies have shown that foam swabs are ineffective in removing plaque and debris on the surface of the mouth and teeth and therefore may not protect the oral mucosa from
Lansier, Epstein, Lunn, and spenelli, 1995).
For many different patient groups, including those with neuroscience, there is a lack of clinical research on oral care.
Usually, administrative and clinical priorities for oral care are low. McGuire(2003)
Eight different barriers to the implementation of oral care standards for cancer patients were identified.
These are similar to other findings about hospitalized patients (Adams, 1996;
Kite & Pearson, 1995; Lee et al. , 2001; Turner, 1996).
Barriers to employee knowledge;
Dependence on tradition
Inconsistent or absent assessment;
Different oral care programs and practices;
Insufficient or contradictory basis of evidence;
Lack of recognized, universal standards of care or best practices;
Administrative and clinical issues;
Lack of cross-cutting cooperation.
The knowledge gap refers to the lack of knowledge by health care providers of good oral care practices.
Dependence on tradition means that oral care interventions are based on established routines and customs, not scientific principles and existing evidence;
The result is to strengthen the subjective practice of traditional oral care methods (McGuire; McNeil, 2000; Stiefel et al. ,2000).
Lack of consensus on oral assessment tools resulted in the failure to continuously use evaluation guidelines in clinical practice.
In addition, staff often lack sufficient knowledge about instrument scoring, and available instruments lack data on effectiveness and reliability for different patient groups.
Without a comprehensive and timely assessment, the ability to monitor care outcomes is limited.
The lack of results data leads to the invisibility and related issues of care in a practical environment (McNeil; Roberts, 2000).
In a hospital environment, surveys conducted in healthcare providers show that there are significant differences in the selection of oral care products, and the results of the study show that, the lack of protocols to guide oral care and the supply of a large number of oral care drugs has resulted in traditional and routine interventions being valued rather than evidence
Based on intervention (Lee et al. , 2001; McGuire; Steifel et al. , 2000).
Insufficient and sometimes contradictory evidence on oral care interventions has led to a widely accepted oral care procedure.
So far, few studies have looked at the efficacy of oral care drugs, especially in patients with neuroscience.
Nurses and other providers may also lack the skills or resources to acquire and review available evidence;
The consequence is confusion and frustration when choosing oral care best practices (Holmes, 1996; Roberts).
One central theme of all identified barriers is the lack of recognized criteria for specific patient groups.
The criteria will include assessment tools, guidelines for intervention (
Time, technology, equipment and medication)
System of expected results and monitoring results.
There has been a lot of debate between providers about the appropriate standards for oral care.
However, reasonable concerns about the different causes of oral rupture in different patient groups slowed overall progress.
Focusing on setting a standard may not help clinically because everyone has a unique need (McGuire, 2003).
Implementation of oralcare standards can sometimes be hampered by administrative and clinical issues related to low staffing and overwork
The authorization of oral care to unlicensed staff has increased the burden (
Wardh, Hallberg, Berggren, Anderson, Sorenson, 2000; Peate,1993).
The admin may not fully understand-
Risk population and may be providing resources to ensure adequate oral care (McGuire;
Ned falls and Frid Lund, 1999).
Lack of cooperation in hospital settings can lead to gaps in oral care, as dentists and oral health workers are rarely required to participate in a multi-disciplinary team of oral care policies and procedures, on the contrary, dentists and hygienists often ignore the role of nurses in providing oral care (
Middleton Fulton and mcphil, 2002; McGuire).
Nursing intervention can interrupt the weaving process and its consequences.
Failure to provide adequate oral care may cause harm to the patient and may therefore be considered negligent in some cases (Adams, 1996).
In practice, registered nurses (RNs)
The actual delivery of oral care is often entrusted to unauthorized personnel, including nursing assistants, technicians and student nurses (Peate, 1993).
Therefore, the care provided by nurses and undocumented personnel represents the full care designed to minimize Oral Complicationsrisk group.
Objective and research issues literature review found that there were very few oral evaluation parameters and nursing interventions in patients with neuroscience.
This article identifies oral care interventions performed by nurses and undocumented caregivers on the population of patients with neurosciencecare deficits.
Empirical evidence and clinical observations suggest that oral care varies from provider to provider and may reflect differences in knowledge, education, experience and skills between RNs and nursing assistants, technicians and student nurses (
Undocumented personnel)
It may reflect systemic problems such as lack of equipment or products.
The following questions were therefore raised: 1.
What oral care interventions have been reported by RNs and those who are not licensed to care for neuroscience patientscare deficits? 2.
What are the most common oral diseases that RNs and undocumented people encounter in neuroscience and self-regulation? care deficits? 3.
What is the frequency of risk of oral complications in neuroscience patients considered by RNs? 4.
It is reported that RNs and undocumented personnel provide oral care for patients with neuroscience what are the barriers and contributing factorscare deficits?
Methods descriptive survey design was used.
The survey technique was chosen because it focused on collecting information by directly asking participants about their activities, beliefs, preferences and attitudes (
Pooch and Hungler, 1997).
Designed questionnaires were used to obtain information from participants about routine procedures and related products used to provide oral care to the neuroscience patient population.
Sample and setup studies in 700-
Tertiary hospitals in the central and western metropolitan area.
The hospital is a primary trauma center and is a leading referral center for patients with stroke, cerebral aneurysm and congenital malformation of the central nervous system.
It also has a large neuroscience service that specifies 25-
Acute nursing unit and 36-bed neuroscience-
Bed neuroscience
40 nurses and 25 undocumented personnel formed regular staff assigned to both units.
The reason why this sample pool is chosen is because they work with the neuroscience population, are responsible for guiding and providing oral care, and have different experiences for neuroscience patients.
Two questionnaires were used. -
One of the RNs, the second of the undocumented.
Although the two questionnaires are similar, they reflect the different practical responsibility of each provider.
The two questionnaires consist of 25 questions.
The content of the questionnaire was similar.
The first category of questions requires participants to identify products used to provide oral care-
Toothbrush, mouthwash, lip moisturizer and other items--
And rank the frequency used by the project at 4-
From \"never\" to \"always \".
Based on a review of the literature and clinical observations of current practice, specific oral care products were selected for inclusion in the questionnaire.
The second category of questions about the frequency and time of care and the records of care.
The choice of frequency of oral care includes am and pm care, pre-meal, post-meal and patient requests.
The frequency of documents is 4-
From \"never\" to \"always \".
Class month let the study object\'s frequency of complications andproblems the people encountered by the nerve last month-
Never to always.
Complications included were identified from the literature.
For RNs, complications were directly asked for this set of questions;
For undocumented persons, the wording of the issue is the issue that should be reported to the registered nurse.
The fourth category asks the specific systemic problems often cited in the literature that lead to routine oral care problems.
Participants asked for a one-month level-
Never agree to strongly agree to statements about system support, including availability of resources--
Supply and timing, giving priority to oral care, and resources to deal with complications.
The last part of the two versions of the questionnaire includes population issues.
For readability and availability, the instrument was piloted by several RNs and undocumented personnel.
Expert nurses familiar with research and literature in the field of oralcare established content effectiveness.
Data is aggregated and reported as frequency data by issue and category.
The nurse manager agrees to distribute questionnaires to employees using a unit
Based on the mail system.
The questionnaire is accompanied by a cover letter explaining the purpose of the project.
Staff were informed that participation was voluntary and anonymous-
There was no name on the material and the researchers did not give the name of the participant. One U. S.
The US dollar notes are attached to the invitation letter, thanking individuals for attending and telling them to keep the money even if they do not attend.
A week later, a reminder letter with a questionnaire was put in the mailbox.
A marked security collection box is placed near the employee\'s mailbox, and the researchers retrieve the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was destroyed after the study was completed.
The study was approved by the human subject body Review Committee.
The survey results are entered into the social science statistics package (SPSS)Version 12.
0, and the frequency distribution is created.
Response categories that are often and always folded.
Creates an organizational syntax for displaying data by provider type (
Registered nurse or unlicensed person)
Each question and shows trends of similarities and differences between groups.
Population data is also summarized in the frequency table.
Of the eligible registered nurse participants, 38% (Table 1).
Most respondents (
73% nurses, 72% undocumented personnel)
Report to the white class (7 am-7 pm)
, The most likely time for oral care.
In order to answer these four research questions, the data are further analyzed.
Use SPSS to report the results in a valid percentage.
Validpercentage is the most widely used percentage column in the frequency table because it reflects the percentage of people who actually answer questions.
Once the number below reaches five, all results are rounded up.
The results of the study are given.
What oral care interventions were reported by nurses and non-licensed personnel for patients with neurosciencecare deficits?
Eight different products are listed on the questionnaire.
It is reported that the most commonly used products are toothbrushes, toothpaste and lip balm.
The most frequently reported products are toothbrushes, mouthwash and lip balm. Seventy-
Foam swabs were reported for 9% of RNs, while 85% of undocumented people reported foam swabs.
Participants were asked to report the frequency and time of oral care.
Four different times related to the normal day of care are listed-
Amand pm care before, after meals and at the request of the patient;
Participants checked all applications.
Most RNs and undocumented personnel are reported to provide oral care for am and pm (88% each).
The unlicensed personnel provide care before the meal (27%)
After dinner (53%)
And very few nurses report care before meals (13%)
After dinner (27%).
It is reported that only 60% of RNs and 67% of undocumented persons provide care at the request of the patient.
Participants were asked to report the frequency of oral care recorded.
Unauthorized persons reported regular or always 60% of the time recorded, while RNs reported regular or always 29% of the time recorded oral care.
Table 2 lists the percentages reported by RNs and non-licensors by product type, frequency and time of care, product type, frequency of care and frequency of document classification providers.
What is the most common oral disease encountered by nurses and undocumented people in the neuroscience populationcare deficits?
Nurse participants were asked to report common diseases in the neuroscience population.
Dry tongue is the most common oral disease, as RNs reported (93%).
RNs also reported two other Frequently Asked Questions-
Thick, cord-like secretions and debris on the tongue.
The fact that RNs did not report gum bleeding in this population is a problem.
The unlicensed person was asked to identify the problem that should be ported to RN.
They report that the pain associated with providing oral care is always (100%)
Need to report to RN.
Although the unlicensed person pointed out that swollen gums, bleeding gums, dry hard skin on the tongue, white spots on the mouth or tongue are a problem for neuroscience patients, only 80%-
87% indicated that these observations should be reported to nurses.
What do nurses think is the frequency of risk of oral complications in neuroscience patients?
This question explores participants\' perceptions of the risk of oral complications in patients with neuroscience.
Both RNs and undocumented people agree that it is possible for neuroscience patients to develop serious complications associated with oral problems-
RNs of 73% and unauthorized personnel of 67% agree.
According to RNs, the complications faced by patients with neuroscience are fungal infections (100%)
Pneumonia (93%)
Bacterial infection (80%)
And airway obstruction (73%).
Unauthorized personnel are not required to be in-riskconditions.
Table 3 summarizes the oral condition of patients with neuroscience reported by RNs, as well as the undocumented person\'s determination of the oral condition that needs to be reported to the nurse.
It is reported that nurses and undocumented personnel have barriers and contributing factors in providing public care to patients with neurosciencecare deficits?
All RNs and undocumented personnel agreed to provide oral care supplies.
80% of RNs and 93% of undocumented people agree that the supply is appropriate.
60% of RNs and 73% of undocumented people think it is enough time to provide oral care.
When asked if it was agreed that oral care was an important part of patient care, 93% of RNs and 100% of ofunlicensed personnel agreed.
60% of RNs agreed to provide expert consultants on oral care issues.
Oral care specialists are defined as resource nurses (
RN with additional education and oral care skills)
Dental healers, dentists, oral surgeons or other professionals with recognized expertise in managing oral health issues. Eighty-
7% of unauthorized personnel agree that a staff nurse assigned to the unit can help them with oral care issues.
These findings are summarized in Table 4.
It is reported that RNs use toothbrushes and toothpaste most frequently to provide oral care.
Foam swabs and mouthwash are reported to be used less frequently and hydrogen peroxide and normal saline are rarely used or never used.
Toothbrush is reported to be the first choice for care, which is inconsistent with the literature that considers foam swab to be the first choice (
Kite and Pearson, 1995).
In this particular practice, a new toothbrush product has recently been introduced.
The product is a foam swab on the back that can be attached to the wall suction to protect patients from inhaling during oral care.
The product seems to have become the preferred product for RNs.
However, unlicensed personnel report more frequent use of foam cotton swabs.
Foam swabs proved to be insufficient in removing patches and debris (
Lefkoff, Baker, Horton, 1995; Ransier et al. , 1995).
Commercially available toiletries usually contain alcohol from dry mucous membranes (Rawlins et al. , 2001).
The differences between product selections may reflect a lack of availability, knowledge, or other issues that should be addressed.
Both RNs and undocumented people report that dry tongues are a common problem for neuroscience patients.
The drug used to control common diseases such as hypertension and epilepsy is dry mouth;
Therefore, choosing care products such as mouthwash that does not dry the mucosa is clinically important.
Both groups reportedly used lip balm.
The questionnaire did not involve oral moisturizer.
However, it can be seen from the survey that the regulatory effect of oral moisturizer on neuroscience is clear.
For these patient groups, we provide clinical guidelines for all employees to choose the right product.
In addition, the use of care guidelines created for this patient group will help to intervene with specific risk factors such as dryness of the mouth, lips and tongue.
RNs and undocumented individuals report Oral cam as most people report it twice a day, sooner or later. This twice-a-
The daily method consistent with the traditional cam procedure of the hospital (Barnason etal. , 1998;
Grap, Munro, Ashtianti and Bryant, 2003). Twice-a-
Day care is the minimum standard for a person with an active and healthy diet (
American Dental Association, n. d. ).
It is often difficult for people in neuroscience to eat and swallow, and it is difficult to produce related saliva. -
Cases that contribute to plaque formation and inflammatory sequelae (
Kite and Pearson, 1995).
Regular oral care guidelines should include more frequent oral care-
RNs and undocumented personnel may report four or more times a day that there is no way to provide oral care at the patient\'s request.
This finding may be related to confusion in the wording of the issue;
It is likely that the respondent will explain the question and ask the patient about the frequency of requests for care.
Clinical experience has shown that many neuroscience patients cannot request oral care due to disease or disease complications.
The tongue is dry, the secretions are thick and may interfere with language communication, and they may not always ask for care when patients wish to accept it.
In addition, cognitive problems in many neuroscience patients may interfere with communication.
It cannot be assumed that care is not required because the patient does not request care.
Due to increased risk and competing care priorities, the frequency of routine oral care should be increased and planned so as not to interfere with other treatments and planned treatments.
Both RNs and undocumented people believe that there is a risk of complications in neuroscience patients.
All nurse participants noted that fungal infection was a possible complication, and 90% pointed out that airway obstruction, bacterial infection, and aspiration pneumonia were possible complications.
A comprehensive outcome assessment project is needed to prove this high-People at risk.
RNs and undocumented personnel identified systemic barriers to providing oral care.
Both RNs and undocumented personnel reported that there were oral care supplies and that they were appropriate.
However, a review of the actual inventory of the unit in which the survey respondents worked showed that the inventory was not always recommended in the literature.
For example, the available toiletries contain relatively high alcohol, which can cause discomfort in patients with damaged oral mucosa (Rawlins et al. , 2001).
It was noted that, despite the availability of an asaliva replacement, there was no regular stock on the unit.
This finding suggests that the staff may be of the view that it is appropriate not to ask for care products because there is a care program.
This finding also suggests that staff choosing from existing products based on their personal preferences may not always confuse patients with the care needs of product functions.
This factor may lead to variability in interventions, which is a precursor to the poor outcome of oralcare. System-
In the process of developing oral care guidelines, the problem of horizontal supply should be addressed.
Consider supply from two perspectives-
Evidence of effectiveness and cost.
Products that lack evidence of validity should be eliminated and effective products should be selected according to cost factors.
The hospital should establish a multi-disciplinary committee to review and select products.
Including procurement personnel and procurement personnel during the election process can help determine the cost of care.
Results data should track clinical and financial results.
In this study, both RNs and undocumented people agreed that oralcare was an important part of patient care as a whole.
A similar study involving Swedish nursing home staff found that unlicensed staff considered oral care to be more troublesome and unpleasant than RNs (Wardh et al. , 2000).
Undocumented people may think this unpleasant job is less important.
More evidence supports the view that oral care is not considered an important intervention (Rawlins etal. , 2001).
This study depends on self. reported data.
While participants may report that oral care is important, there is no data that can be compared with actual practice.
Both groups reported that there was not enough time allocated to provide oral care, which may reflect a lower priority for oral care compared to other care needs.
Unlicensed personnel reported that oral care was recorded more frequently than recorded. An outcomes-
Monitoring programs will help to link care documents to results and improve the relevance of documents to quality care.
60% of nurses reported that there was no expert consultation on oral care.
This finding is supported by early work where dentists are not available and do not participate in the development of oral care protocols (Fulton et al. , 2002).
Maybe the most appropriate.
Lineconsultant will be a dentist.
Oral health practitioners are specialized in providing oral hygiene using scientific theories and standards of care.
Both dentists and oral healers need to be more involved in developing oral care protocols and can be consulted.
It\'s also interesting that not all unauthorized people have checked the unit-
Based on RN as an available consultant to the oralcare issue, although the panel noted that they would report the oralproblems to RN and document the oral issues.
This indicates a disconnect between observation, reporting and recording issues and the actual tracking care plan.
An effective outcome plan requires a standardized assessment tool.
The study did not include questions about oralassessment, as standardized formats or tools were not used in settings.
Standardized evaluation parameters are critical to monitor the effectiveness of oral care routines (including Time, Frequency, and products.
The literature suggests that there is a high risk of oral complications in neuroscience patients, which can be either local or systemic.
Guidelines developed for this population must include results monitoring of patient care ongoing assessment and determination of best practices.
The results of this study are self-based. reported data.
The response is limited to the fixed choice of the investigator --
The data is likely to be incomplete;
Participants may be able to provide more information if it is more open
A data collection method that has been used alone or combined with an observation method.
Adding cases helps to identify the nurse\'s judgment and key decision-making on the complications of oral care.
Although the tool had been reviewed by the staff prior to its use for research, the results indicated that several issues were unclear.
For example, staff reported that they would not provide oral care when asked to go around, but this patient group may not require care for multiple easons associated with cognitive and physical defects.
This study is limited to only one environment.
Respondents may be reluctant to report findings that they believe may reflect poorly on themselves or their units.
Including more different types of settings will help identify issues from a broader perspective.
More research needs to be done to determine the knowledge of nurses about poor oral health and complications associated with oral care.
Nurses reported knowing about oral complications, but additional research was needed to determine the ability of nurses to apply knowledge in practice and the impact of knowledge on practice and patient outcomes.
Studies need to record the link between oral health, oral care and local and systemic complications.
Cost factors, including the cost of routine preventive oral care and the costs associated with complications, should be evaluated.
People who are not licensed are often given oral care.
Undocumented persons acquire knowledge and skills in oral care through various options, including formal vocational education programs, hospitals-
Based on training program and on-the-job training.
In order to explore the most effective way to train undocumented people, additional research is required.
Research needs to be carried out to address the ability of nurses to supervise and evaluate the care provided by persons not licensed.
Summary This study investigated oral care interventions by caregivers and unlicensed caregivers in patients with self-Neurological Sciencescaredeficits.
The study did not support the use of reported interventions such as mouthwash with alcohol and foam swabs.
Nurses and undocumented personnel often report oral disease, thick and rough secretions, dry tongue, and excessive debris on the tongue.
The nurse reported that there was a risk of fungal infection, airway obstruction, bacterial infection, and aspiration pneumonia in neuroscience patients.
Limited time to provide care and access to specialists such as dentists or dental healers is considered an obstacle to providing care.
Self-limited neuroscience patients
The nursing ability depends on the nursing intervention of oral care to reduce complications and prevent complications.
For these people, the evidence
Specific risk factors that lead to poor oral health need to be addressed based on guidelines.
Results evaluation is necessary to monitor the effectiveness of care, to strengthen the importance of care, to identify knowledge gaps and to prove the systemlevel changes.
Reference Adams, R. (1996).
Qualified nurses lack sufficient knowledge related to oral health, resulting in insufficient oral care for patients in the medical ward.
Journal of Advanced Care, 24 (3), 552-560.
American Dental Association(n. d. ).
Recommended oral care guide.
Search from www on September 10, 2003. ada. org. Andersson, P. Wei\'s,. , Karlsson, S. , Hallberg, I. R. , &Renvert, S. (2002).
Oral health and nutritional status of a group of elderly rehabilitation patients.
Scandinavian Journal of automotive science, 16,311-318. Barnason, S. , Graham, J. , Wild, M. C. , Jensen, L. B. , Rasmussen,D. , Schulz, P. , et al. (1998).
Comparison of two types of trachea catheter fixation techniques in unplanned Tube drawing, oral mucosa and facial skin integrity.
Heart and Lung: Journal of intensive care, 27 (6),409-417. Clarke, G. (1993).
Oral care and inpatient.
Journal of Nursing, 2 (4), 225-227. Coleman, P. (2002).
Improving the oral health of the frail elderly: a view of the prevailing problems and best practices.
Elderly care, 23 (4), 189-199. Fulton, J. S. , Middleton, G. J. , & McPhail, J. T. (2002).
Treatment of oral complications.
Seminar on cancer care, 18 (1),28-35. Grap, M. J. , Munro, C. L. , Ashtiani, B. , & Bryant, S. (2003).
Oral care intervention in intensive care: frequency and recording.
American Journal of intensive care, 12 (2),113-118. Holmes S. (1996).
Nursing management of oral care for elderly patients.
Number of nursing, 92 (9),37-39. Kite, K. , & Pearson, L. (1995).
Theoretical basis of oral care: a combination of theory and practice.
Reinforcement and criticism at the age of 112),71-76. Kostler, W. J. , Hejna, M. , Wenzel, C.
And Zielinski as chairman, C. C. (2001).
Prevention and treatment of oral fasciitis combined with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy options.
CA: Journal of Cancer for clinicians, 51,290-315. Lee, L. , White, V. , Ball, J. , Gill, K. , Smart, L. , McEwan, K. , etal. (2001).
Audit of oral care practices and employee knowledge in hospital palliative care.
International Journal of Palliative Care, 7 (8),395-400. Lefkoff, M. H. , Beck, F. M. & Horton, J. E. (1995).
Effectiveness of disposable toothbrush cleaning device on dental plaque.
Journal of periodontal medicine, 66 (3),218-221. McGuire, D. R. (2003).
Barriers and strategies for cancer patients to implement oforal care standards.
Supportive care for cancer, 1I, 435-441. McNeill, H. E. (2000).
Retreat due to poor oral hygiene.
Intensive Care, 367-372. Miaskowski, C. (2001).
Biology of mucosal pain
Monograph of National Cancer Research Institute, 29, 37-40. Miller, M. , & Kearney, N. (2001).
Oral care for cancer patients: a literature review.
Cancer Care at the age of 24 (4),241-254. Milne, V. , Brady, M. , & Hunter, R. (2002).
The staff took interventions to improve oral hygiene in stroke patients.
Cochrane System Evaluation database, 4. Paulsson, G. , Nederfors, T. And Frid Sind, B. (1999).
Concept of oral health for nurse managers: qualitative analysis.
Journal of Nursing Management, 7,299-306. Polit, D. F. , & Hungler, B. P. (1999).
Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (6th ed).
Philadelphia: Lippincott. Rakel, R. (Ed. ). (1997).
Kang\'s current treatmentPhiladelphia:W. B. Saunders.
Retrieve from www. chclibrary. org. Ransier, A. , Epstein, J. B. , Lunn, R. Spenelli, J. (1995).
Combined Analysis of toothbrushes, foam brushes and shampoo
Foam brush to keep the mouth clean.
Cancer Care, 18 years old (5),393-396. Rawlins, C. A. , Ward, J. , & Trueman, I. W. (2001).
Provide effective care for seriously ill patients.
Professional nurse aged 164),1025-1028. Roberts, J. (2000)
Develop oral assessment and intervention tools for the elderly.
Journal of Nursing, 9 (17),1124-1127. Squier, C. A. , & Kremer, M. J. (2001).
Biology of oral mucosa and esophagus
Journal of monographs, National Cancer Institute, 29, 7-15. Stiefel, K. A. , Damron, S. , Sowers, N. J. , & Velez, L. (2000).
Improving oral hygiene of seriously ill patients: Implementation Study-based practice.
Nursing, 9 (1),40-46. Turner, G. (1996). Oral care.
Standard of Care, 10 (28), 51-56. Wardh, I. , Hallberg, L. R. M. , Berggren, U. , Andersson, L. , &Sorensen, S. (2000).
Oral Care: low priority of care-In-
Conduct in-depth interviews with nursing staff.
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 14 (2),137-142. Yoneyama, T. , Yoshida, M. , Ohrui, T. , Mukaiyama, H. , Okamoto, H. ,Hoshiba, K. , et al. (2002).
Oral care can reduce pneumonia in elderly patients in nursing homes.
Journal of the American Society of geriatric medicine, 50,430-433. Jennifer L.
Msn rn Cohn is a clinical nurse specialist at Indianapolis anhealth.
Janet Fulton is an associate professor at the School of Nursing at Indiana University.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Leave Your Message inputting...