Celebrating our success over the holiday period: 40 papers to read over the holiday

The final issue for 2023 is absolutely bursting at the seams! We are thrilled to share that the journal's impact factor has reached 3.0, highlighting the dedication of authors, reviewers, and the editorial team, along with the continued support of readers. To express our gratitude for your continued support and to celebrate our success, we have curated an exceptionally large number of publications for your reading pleasure. You might consider this extensive collection as a Christmas present from our journal to you. This issue features a diverse array of scholarly works, encompassing a wide range of paper types originating from different countries and regions. We aim to provide our readers with a broader view of critical care nursing practices worldwide, enabling them to grasp insights about critical care nursing in several countries and regions. The issue starts with a guest editorial on the capabilities and limitations of large language models, such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chat Bing, in critical care nursing research.1 Out of the 40 articles included in this issue, 30 are research articles. Among these, nine utilized a qualitative approach. From Sweden, a study2 investigated family members' experiences with and evaluation of intensive care units (ICUs) liaison nurse support service, another study3 described patients' experiences of preparing for transfer from an ICU to a ward, and another4 investigated registered nurses' perceptions of sudden cardiac arrest survivors' sleep. From Denmark, one study5 explored the critical care nursing staff's perception of patient involvement in their care in ICUs, and another study6 explored ICU nurses' experiences of communicating while wearing personal protective equipment during COVID-19 isolation precautions. A Chinese study7 explored the ICU nurses' experience of providing care for older people with severe COVID-19 in the Omicron wave. An Egyptian study8 explored ICU and floating nurses' perspectives of the floating experience in ICUs. Kelly et al.9 explored how knowledge/evidence is acquired, shared, and applied in the United Kingdom's (UK) critical care environment for staff and patients/family members. Stilma and colleagues10 conducted focus groups (three in the Netherlands and one with participants from four European countries) to understand factors influencing the decision-making process of health care professionals regarding mechanical insufflation-exsufflation for invasively ventilated patients. The cross-sectional research design was employed by 13 studies. Of these, six originated from China to examine the knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding glycaemic control among ICU professionals,11 to explore the relationship between alarm fatigue and burnout among critical care nurses,12 to examine the association between shift work schedules, compensatory sleep, work–family conflict, and fatigue of shift-working nurses,13 to investigate stakeholders' values and preferences regarding draft recommendations for adapted physical restraint guidelines,14 to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of prone positioning of patients among ICU nurses working in COVID19 units,15 and to analyse the reliability and validity of a competency evaluation model for front-line nursing staff during the outbreak of major infectious diseases.16 From Turkey, one study17 identified the skin problems related to using personal protective equipment by ICU nurses, and another study18 examined the relationship between alarm fatigue and the tendency to make medical errors among ICU nurses. A Finnish study19 assessed intensive care professionals' perceptions of, and factors associated with, the quality of counselling provided to ICU patients and their family members. An Iranian study20 compared muscle strength and ICU-acquired weakness in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. A Chilean study21 examined the prevalence of second victimhood among adult ICU nurses and its relationship with their perception of the organization's support. Price et al.22 investigated the factors that enable or hinder adult ICU nurse–family engagement; the authors included participants across five continents. Finally, Pieciak and colleagues23 examined nurses' perception around the use of near-infrared spectroscopy across paediatric cardiac ICUs. This issue also features prospective, pretest-posttest, mixed-method, and randomized controlled research. A Brazilian prospective cohort study24 performed a causal validation of the risk for corneal injury nursing diagnosis, which was approved in 2013, in critically ill adults. A prospective observational study in Taiwan25 investigated the impact of frailty on the risk of hospital and 30-day mortality and functional outcomes of older people in ICU. Canadian mixed-methods research26 evaluated the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a co-designed bundled intervention to support communication with adult patients with an advanced airway in ICU in pandemic conditions. An Egyptian randomized controlled trial27 investigated the effects of awake-prone positioning on oxygenation and physiological outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19. Four studies employed a pretest–posttest design. A Turkish study28 evaluated the effect of a training program on nurses' and auxiliary service staff's knowledge about nasogastric tube management and hand hygiene and on the level of nasogastric tube colonization. Another Turkish study29 evaluated the effect of cold compresses applied to the bilateral frontotemporal and occipital regions for headache among individuals receiving intravenous nitroglycerin treatment. A Taiwanese study30 examined the impact of adding educational digital video discs to routine education on maternal anxiety and depression caused by children's heart surgery, whereas an Irish study31 evaluated the impact of a prevention care bundle on the incidence of pressure injuries in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome nursed in a prone position. In this issue, we also include three systematic reviews: one aimed at identifying a population of critically ill children who have the highest risk of developing venous thromboembolism,32 one examined the effectiveness of music listening on sleep quality, psychological outcomes, and physiological outcomes of critically ill patients,33 and one reviewed the available evidence of initial paediatric trauma care throughout the health care process.34 We also include a brief report35 that describes the development, structure, and implementation of an evidence-based protocol for sensory soothing interventions in critically ill infants and children in the United States, and a protocol of a mixed-methods, multicentre study aimed at developing and testing an e-health intervention in a follow-up service to support ICU patients' relatives.36 Furthermore, a case study of a pregnant woman who was diagnosed with acute fatty liver of pregnancy in China is presented.37 A service evaluation article38 reviewed the experience of critical care nursing staff working with an Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) support team in the UK. A quality improvement report39 from Australia employed a dual methods exploratory descriptive design to identify medication administration errors and context specific barriers and enablers for best practice in an adult and a neonatal ICU. An evaluation article40 from the UK explored the perceived barriers and limitations to mobilization from the perspective of nursing staff and compared these with physiotherapists. A critical commentary41 on Nunez-Nunez and colleagues' review—Compatibility of prolonged infusion antibiotics during Y-site administration—42 is also included in this issue. This extended issue of Nursing in Critical Care includes a larger than usual collection of papers from authors from diverse backgrounds and critical care settings. We sincerely hope you will enjoy the diverse range of topics and research methodologies presented within this issue. None. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.