Background: Nursing interns are an important backup force for nursing professionals, so efforts to strengthen their patient safety (PS) competencies are a major priority. To do so requires assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Chinese nursing students’ PS competence and identifying the influencing factors. Methods: This was a multi-site, cross-sectional, web-based study that was carried out between September 2018 and January 2019. A national online survey was completed by 732 Chinese undergraduate nursing students. Our primary outcome factor was the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey score. We also collected socio-demographic and clinical practice-related characteristics as independent variables. Multiple stepwise linear regression was performed to identify predictors of PS competence. Results: Chinese undergraduate nursing students were fairly confident in their clinical safety skills but less confident in what they learned about sociocultural or context-dependent aspects of PS and speaking up about PS, including effective communication and understanding human and environmental factors. Less than half of the students felt that they could approach someone engaging in unsafe practice and were reluctant to voice concern about adverse events. We observed significant differences in PS competence between students from different regions, across different PS learning styles (self-study and classroom theoretical study), with different self-assessed PS competence levels, and with experiences of adverse events (p < 0.05). These factors accounted for almost 15% of the total variance in PS competence scores (adjusted R² = 0.15, p = 0.00). Conclusions: The results of this study provide a better understanding of PS competence among final-year nursing students in China. Our findings may help nursing educators or healthcare organizations to cultivate and improve PS competence by establishing documented policies or by improving the efficacy of intervention.

The aim of this study was to describe the resilience of nurses who cared for patients with a confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis, as well as factors that potentially contributed to that resilience. A total of 23 frontline nurses who cared for patients with COVID‐19 were recruited from a COVID‐19–designated facility in Shanghai, China, using purposive sampling strategies. In‐depth interviews were conducted from March to May 2020. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim and content analysis was used. Nurses exhibited psychological resilience while caring for patients with COVID‐19. They displayed an ability to bounce back from negative mental experiences and transform to a positive mindset to cope with the stress they faced. Factors that enhanced the nurses' resilience during the pandemic were their becoming familiar with infectious disease protocols, having a sense of professional achievement, receiving social support, having trust in the infection‐control response team in the hospital, and using self‐regulation strategies. This study could guide the design of future resilience‐enhancing interventions that provide positive coping strategies for nurses caring for individuals with infectious diseases during a pandemic.

This study aims to provide a systematic compilation of existing measures of self-efficacy developed specifically for use in cancer patients and provide descriptions and comparative evaluations of the characteristics, psychometric properties and performance parameters. A systematic electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid (PsyINFO), EBSCO, Elsevier, Scopus to identify self-efficacy assessment tools for cancer patients, between January 1977 to February 2018. The characteristics of target population, instrument, development process and psychometric properties were summarized. All included instruments were subsequently appraised using a psychometric quality assessment tool based on previous publications. Validity of the quality assessment was reviewed and confirmed by five experts. Fifteen cancer-related self-efficacy instruments were identified. Among them, (40.0%) 6/15 were task-specific, focusing on cancer-related health issues such as fatigue, communication, rehabilitation, exercise, and narcotic pain killer usage. Six instruments were disease-specific for breast cancer, lung cancer, or advanced cancer. Weaknesses of the development processes included the singularity of instrument construction methods, and non-transparent selection of the final items. The main limitation seen in the validation processes was that some important properties of instruments (e.g. test-retest reliability, criterion validity, responsiveness, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability) were not evaluated. This review summarizes the limitations and strengths of current self-efficacy instruments for cancer patient. The information reported here can assist clinicians and researchers in the selection of the appropriate instrument. Finally, it points out the need for reporting validation statistics to facilitate the use of these instruments.