EORNA2022_Abstract Book

10th EORNA Congress Stavanger, Norway | 12 - 15 May 2022 Parallel Sessions 14 May and September 2020. Sixty-nine patients were preoperatively assessed by a nurse and 114 by an anaesthesiologist. Data collection included a questionnaire to assess patient satisfaction and knowledge acquired from the preoperative assessment. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. Results: Incidents causing cancellation of surgery were the same in both cohorts (3.8%, 2.6%). The incidence of poor preparation attributable to the patient was also similar in both cohorts (17.0% vs 18.4%). Patients seen by nurses valued the satisfaction with the preoperative assessment more highly than patients seen by anaesthesiologists (median 91.67 vs 84.62). In terms of Knowledge obtained from the preoperative assessment, both professionals did not show statistically significant differences in knowledge levels. Conclusions: Preoperative patient assessment performed by a nurse with anaesthesia training in low-complexity surgical patients can be as effective as that performed by an anaesthesiologist, without having an impact on surgical cancellations or patient preparation. On the day of surgery, patients who had been assessed by a nurse were more satisfied with their care during the visit and acquired similar knowledge about preoperative preparation as patients assessed by anaesthesiologists. Relevance for clinical practice: Properly trained nursing staff can perform the preoperative assessment in low-complexity surgical patients to the same standard as anaesthesiologists. Parallel session: On the path to success - A way out burnout OP05 Professional burnout of nursing staff and working groups in surgical unit M.C. Parejo-Aguilera1, M.J. Uñón-García2, I.M. Cortés-Ortega1, M.Á. Fuentes Montes1, A. Bazo-Sánchez1, C. San Juan Cristóbal1 1Gerencia de Asistencia Sanitaria de Segovia, Quirófano, Segovia, Spain, 2Gerencia de Asistencia Sanitaria de Segovia, Dirección de Enfermería, Segovia, Spain Immersed in a project on professional burnout and working groups, the COVID-19 Pandemic forced us to segregate the staff. Once the team has regrouped, we studied the evolution of their level of professional burnout and quantified the participation in working groups. Methodology: Prospective longitudinal descriptive study. We used the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) questionnaire in June 2019, 2020 and 2021. Epi_ Info. 7 data processing. Diagnosis according to the values of Gilmonte and Peiró. Results: Response rates above 75%, 76% and 97.7% n 33 33 44. The group averages obtained were for Emotional Fatigue (EQ) 26.93 26.21 27.66. Levels high high high. For Depersonalisation (DP) 6,73 7,39 8,77. Levels medium medium medium. For Personal Accomplishment (PR) 33,94 36,15 35,25. High medium medium level. The number of people affected by high level of professional burnout has been for CE 60.61%. 63.64% and 68.18% for PD 30.30% 45.45%, 46.45%. For PR 54.55%, 36.36% 50.00%. 38% of those who participated and 60% of those who did not participate in working groups present a high level of professional burnout in PR Personal Accomplishment. Conclusions: Although the 2021 figures position us at high medium medium level for CE, DP and PR, we interpret that the group diagnosis is HIGH LEVEL of professional burnout as the scores have increased and less than 3 tenths is the distance to the high level in DP, PR. The number of people with high level has increased more than 8% for CE and 16% for DP compared to 2019 data. 22% of the participants in working groups have a better level of PR and 12% have a better level in CE, which suggests that working groups could reverse the observed trend and encourages us to continue promoting them in our work environment.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mzc2ODc=