Enhanced Nursing Care for Improving the Self-Efficacy & Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with a Urostomy

Nursing Care for Patients After Urostomy Surgery

ABSTRACT

When an ostomy care nurse is not available, bedside nurses must assume responsibility for providing necessary care and educating patients who undergo a urinary diversion. However, staff nurses often lack the necessary knowledge and experience to provide the best care, rehabilitation, and patient education. This article details pre- and postoperative interventions for nurses who encounter patients undergoing urostomy surgery in order to help eliminate gaps in care, increase nurses' and patients' competence and confidence, and optimize patient outcomes and quality of life. It also includes a tear sheet that nurses can use to provide patients with the basic information and skills they need for effective self-care.

Nursing interventions for the self-efficacy of ostomy patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Self-efficacy interventions, which include the acquisition of skills that enable patients to manage their health on a daily basis, play a key role in ostomy patients, which leads to significant changes in the quality of life of patients. In this context, nursing interventions to increase self-efficacy of ostomy patients are very important. In this context, nursing interventions are crucial to increase the self-efficacy of ostomy patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to describe nursing interventions for ostomy patients' self-efficacy (primary outcome) and the impact of these interventions on patient outcomes (complications, quality of life, satisfaction, psychological resilience, stoma adaptation) (secondary outcomes).

METHOD

As a systematic review, this study included articles published in PUBMED, Web of Science, Science-Direct, TUBITAK-ULAKBIM, and TRDizin databases between January 2013 and January 2023 that included nursing interventions for self-efficacy ostomy patients. This systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool developed by Cochrane.

RESULTS

A total of 1211 articles were retrieved from the databases using Turkish and English keywords. Fifteen studies met the study criteria. These studies found that various interventions, such as training, telephone follow-up, psychosocial support groups, or mobile applications provided to intervention groups, increased self-efficacy, decreased stoma-related complications, improved stoma adaptation, and improved quality of life by increasing patients' knowledge and awareness of stoma.

CONCLUSION

Nursing interventions to improve the self-efficacy and adaptation of ostomy patients are critical. This improvement leads to a reduction in adverse patient outcomes and ostomy complications, shorter hospital stays, and increased patient and nurse satisfaction.

Is fracture management merely a physical process? Exploring the psychological effects of internal and external fixation

BACKGROUND

Internal and external fixation are common surgical procedures for treating fractures. However, the impact of different surgical approaches (including internal and external fixations) on patients' psychological status and Quality of Life (QoL) is rarely examined. Herein, we aimed to investigate the effects of internal and external fixation on anxiety, depression, insomnia, and overall mental and physical health in Distal Radius Fractures (DRF) patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study on 96 fracture patients who underwent internal fixation (57 patients) or external fixation (39 patients). The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire were used to assess the patients' pain, anxiety, depression, sleep, and QoL before surgery and at seven days, one month, and three months post-surgery.

RESULTS

The VAS scores were significantly lower in the Internal Fixation Group (IFG) than in the External Fixation Group (EFG) on the seventh day and one month postoperatively (P < 0.05). Although both groups showed no significant anxiety, depression, or insomnia before surgery (P > 0.05), the EFG showed significantly higher HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores than the IFG at seven days and one and three months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Additionally, changes in HADS-A, HADS-D, and AIS scores were most significant at day seven post-surgery in the EFG (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the average Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores before surgery (P > 0.05). However, both groups showed positive changes in PCS and MCS scores at postoperative day seven and one and three months postoperatively, with the IFG having significantly higher average PCS and MCS scores compared to the EFG (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to external fixation, internal fixation did not significantly impact patients' emotions regarding anxiety and depression in the early postoperative period, and physical and mental health recovery was better during the postoperative rehabilitation period. Furthermore, when there are no absolute indications, the impact on patients' psychological well-being should be considered as one of the key factors in the treatment plan during surgical approach selection.

Development and preliminary validation of a PROS scale for Chinese bladder cancer patients with abdominal stoma

Bladder cancer is a common malignant tumor, and patients who have undergone radical cystectomy and urinary diversion require a lifelong abdominal stoma. This greatly affects their physiological, psychological, and social well-being. However, there is currently a lack of a self-assessment outcome scale specifically designed for bladder cancer patients with abdominal stomas. Therefore, we developed and validated a self-assessment outcome scale (PROS-BCAS) for Chinese bladder cancer patients with abdominal stomas. The scale was initially developed through literature research and expert consultation, and it comprised four dimensions: physiological, psychological, social, and treatment, with a total of 66 items. After item analysis, 44 items were retained. We collected scale data from 382 patients to examine its validity and reliability. The results showed that the PROS-BCAS scale had good content validity (S-CVI/Ave = 0.992), construct validity (KMO > 0.6), and discriminant validity (correlation coefficient 0.404-0.870). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients (0.801-0.954), test-retest reliability (0.778-0.956), and split-half reliability (0.896-0.977) all demonstrated good internal consistency for each dimension and the overall scale. The study demonstrated that the PROS-BCAS scale is a reliable and valid tool for accurately assessing the health-related quality of life of bladder cancer patients with abdominal stomas, providing reference for developing individualized clinical care plans.