On Low-Value Nursing Care: Part 1, Why De-implementation Matters for Quality Care

Low-value health care, de-implementation, and implications for nursing research: A discussion paper

Globally, the nursing profession constitutes the largest proportion of the health workforce; however, it is challenged by widespread workforce shortages relative to need. Strategies to promote recruitment of the nursing workforce are well-established, with a lesser focus on strategies to alleviate the burden on the existing workforce. This burden may be exacerbated by the impact of low-value health care, characterised as health care that provides little or no benefit for patients, or has the potential to cause harm. Low-value health care is a global problem, a major contributor to the waste of healthcare resources, and a key focus of health system reform. Evidence of variation in low-value health care has been identified across countries and system levels. Research on low-value health care has largely focused on the medical profession, with a paucity of research examining either low-value health care or the de-implementation of low-value health care from a nursing perspective. The objective of this paper is to provide a scholarly discussion of the literature around low-value health care and de-implementation, with the purpose of identifying implications for nursing research. With increasing pressures on the global nursing workforce, research identifying low-value health care and developing approaches to de-implement this care, is crucial.

Describing Anisocoria in Neurocritically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

Anisocoria (unequal pupil size) has been defined using cut points ranging from greater than 0.3 mm to greater than 2.0 mm for absolute difference in pupil size. This study explored different pupil diameter cut points for assessing anisocoria as measured by quantitative pupillometry before and after light stimulus.

METHODS

An exploratory descriptive study of international registry data was performed. The first observations in patients with paired left and right quantitative pupillometry measurements were included. Measurements of pupil size before and after stimulus with a fixed light source were used to calculate anisocoria.

RESULTS

The sample included 5769 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [17.6] years; female sex, 2558 patients [51.5%]; White race, 3669 patients [75.5%]). Anisocoria defined as pupil size difference of greater than 0.5 mm was present in 1624 patients (28.2%) before light stimulus; 645 of these patients (39.7%) also had anisocoria after light stimulus (P < .001). Anisocoria defined as pupil size difference of greater than 2.0 mm was present in 79 patients (1.4%) before light stimulus; 42 of these patients (53.2%) also had anisocoria after light stimulus (P < .001).

DISCUSSION

The finding of anisocoria significantly differed before and after light stimulus and according to the cut point used. At most cut points, fewer than half of the patients who had anisocoria before light stimulus also had anisocoria after light stimulus.

CONCLUSION

The profound difference in the number of patients adjudicated as having anisocoria using different cut points reinforces the need to develop a universal definition for anisocoria.