Affecting Change Through Continuing Education: Improving Vaccine Administration Technique
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
How to Obtain Contact Hours by Reading This Issue Instructions: 2.3 contact hours will be awarded for this activity. A contact hour is 60 minutes of instruction. This is a Learner-paced Program. Vindico Medical Education does not require submission of the quiz answers. A contact hour certificate will be awarded 4–6 weeks following receipt of your completed Registration Form, including the Evaluation portion. To obtain contact hours: 1. Read the article, “Affecting Change Through Continuing Education: Improving Vaccine Administration Technique,” on pages 395–400, carefully noting the tables and other illustrative materials that are provided to enhance your knowledge and understanding of the content. 2. Read each question and record your answers. After completing all questions, compare your answers to those provided within this issue. 3. Type or print your full name and address and your Social Security number in the spaces provided on the Registration Form. Indicate the total time spent on the activity (reading article and completing quiz). Forms and quizzes cannot be processed if this section is incomplete. All participants are required by the accreditation agency to attest to the time spent completing the activity. 4. Forward the completed Registration Form with your check or money order for $20 made payable to JCEN-CNE . Payment must be in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank. This activity is valid from September 1, 2012, to August 31, 2014. Vindico Medical Education, LLC is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on Accreditation. This activity is co-provided by Vindico Medical Education and T he J ournal of C ontinuing E ducation in N ursing . Objectives: After studying the article, “Affecting Change Through Continuing Education: Improving Vaccine Administration Technique,” in this issue, the participant will: 1. Describe an educational initiative that translated knowledge into clinical practice. 2. Identify current best practices in intramuscular vaccine administration technique. 3. Identify knowledge and beliefs around the need to aspirate prior to intramuscular vaccine administration. 4. Identify reasons why avoiding aspiration prior to intramuscular vaccination does not impact client safety. Author Disclosure Statement Ms. Allan is on the speakers’ bureau of the Immunization Education Initiative, which is supported by an unrestricted grant from Wyeth. Commercial Support Statement All author(s) and planners have agreed that this activity will be free of bias. There is no commercial company support for this activity. There is no noncommercial support for this activity. The practice of aspiration before administering intramuscular immunization has been identified as causing increased pain. The latest evidence shows that this is no longer best practice. Some nurses believe that aspiration is necessary for patient safety. An education session was provided to 150 participants, most of whom were community health nurses attending an immunization conference. Nurses were invited to complete a pre-education questionnaire on current knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs related to the administration of intramuscular immunizations as well as a posteducation questionnaire to identify changes in knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. On the pre-education questionnaire, 32.4% of respondents indicated that injecting slowly causes the most pain during intramuscular immunization. On the posteducation questionnaire, 94.2% indicated that injecting the vaccine slowly caused more pain than injecting the vaccine swiftly. After the education session, most of the participants showed an understanding of current best practice recommendations for aspiration during the administration of intramuscular immunizations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle