PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M K Jiricka

Publications and source records attributed to M K Jiricka.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

Impact of family demands and family strengths and capabilities on family well-being and adaptation after critical injury.

BACKGROUND: Increases in demands on patients' family members that are not reduced by family strengths may contribute to decreases in family adaptation and complicate patients' recovery after trauma. The purpose of this study was to examine family demands (prior stressors and severity of patients' injuries) and family strengths and capabilities (hardiness, resources, coping, and problem-solving communication) associated with outcomes of family well-being and adaptation. METHODS: A multivariate, descriptive design based on the Resiliency Model of Family Stress was used. A convenience sample of family members (N = 51) of adult patients participated within the first 2 days of critical injury. Family demands were measured with the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes and the Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation III. Family strengths were measured with the Family Hardiness Index, Family Inventory of Resources for Management, Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scale, and Family Problem Solving Communication Index. Family adaptation outcomes were measured with the Family Well Being Index and Family Adaptation Scale. RESULTS: Increases in family demands were significantly related to decreases in family strengths and family adaptation. Family demands scores accounted for 40% of the variance in family well-being scores. The only significant family strength variable influencing family adaptation was problem-solving communication. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in family demands seem to be an important indicator of the amount of assistance a family may need. Interventions that help mobilize family strengths, such as problem-solving communication, may be effective in promoting the adaptation of families of critically injured patients.

APACHE↗
PubMed1995

Pressure ulcer risk factors in an ICU population.

BACKGROUND: Although it is well known that pressure ulcers are associated with negative patient outcomes and increased hospital cost, there is little research related to pressure ulcers in an intensive care unit population. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative contribution of risk factors in the development of pressure ulcers in intensive care unit patients. METHOD: In an exploratory descriptive design, a convenience sample of 85 adults was used. Patients were enrolled in the study within 24 hours of admission to the intensive care unit; data were collected every other day until discharge from the intensive care unit. Instruments included a demographic data form, Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk, Skin Assessment Tool, and Decubitus Ulcer Potential Analyzer. RESULTS: The most common reasons for admission to the intensive care unit included multiple trauma from motor vehicle accidents, gunshot and stab wounds, and gastrointestinal bleeding. A pressure ulcer developed in 48 subjects. There were no significant differences in age, gender, history of diabetes or smoking, or medical diagnoses between patients in whom a pressure ulcer developed and those in whom it did not. Data analysis indicated that a Braden Scale score of 11, rather than the recommended score of 16, was statistically significant for predicting pressure ulcer risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that a cut-off score on the Braden Scale could be specific to an intensive care unit trauma population.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Fluid volume deficit: validating the indicators. The Research Committee, Greater Milwaukee Area Chapter of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.

A validation of the nursing diagnosis "fluid volume deficit related to active isotonic loss" was completed by using the diagnostic content validity method. A validation tool containing 72 clinical indicators was mailed to a national sample of critical care experts. The study sample rated the clinical indicators on a scale from one to five, evaluating their relevancy to this diagnosis. The Delphi survey technique was used. Of the 72 clinical indicators on the validation tool, 17 were categorized as critical indicators and 29 were categorized as defining characteristics.

Dehydration↗