JUNE 1996, VOL 63, NO 6

the temperature differences did not correlate with background variables such as gender, weight, age, core temperature, or ambient temperature.

The mean axillary temperature obtained with electronic ther- mometers increased gradually throughout the 13-minute mea- surement period. The time required for 90% of the patients to reach 0.1 O C (0.2’ F) of their maxi- mum axillary temperatures was nine minutes in adults and seven minutes in children. The adults’ axillary readings obtained with chemical dot thermometers corre- lated well with electronic ther- mometer readings ( r = .9l), but the chemical dot thermometer read- ings were significantly higher (paired t test, P < .OOOI).

The children’s chemical dot thermometer readings correlated less well with maximum electronic values ( r = .73), but there was bet- ter numerical agreement between the two methods of temperature measurement (paired t test, P = .15). The investigators suggest that health care providers confirm chemical dot thermometer read- ings with electronic or mercury thermometers in patients whose temperature measurements have important consequences for treat- ment decisions.

tions. This study suggests that chemical dot thermometers may underestimate adults’ oral tempera- tures and may overestimate axil- lary temperatures in adults and young children. Perioperative nurs- es should question the appropriate- ness of chemical dot thermometers for screening patients for fever pre- operatively and for monitoring patients’ postoperative recoveries (eg, hypothennia, fever). Chemical dot thermometers may provide

Perioperative nursing implica-

only rough estimates of oral and axillary temperatures in many patients. Perioperative staff nurses and surgical service managers who participate in purchasing decisions regarding thermometers for patient care should evaluate the measure- ment accuracy of these products carefully.

The investigators’ review of the literature revealed insufficient information about temperature measurement protocols, sample characteristics, and statistical results to permit accurate interpre- tation of some previous studies’ results. Perioperative nurse researchers should report these methodological issues in sufficient detail to permit readers to confirm study results and accurately inter- pret study findings.

KATHLEEN 6. GABERSON RN, PHD

1995-1 996 NURSING RESEARCH COMMIITEE

TEACHING CARING TO NURSING STUDENTS C L S Simonson Journal of Nursing Education Vol35 (March 1996)

n the last two decades, numer- ous nurse researchers have I explored the phenomenon of

caring in relation to nursing. Many nurses refer to caring as “the essence of nursing.” This phenom- enologic study examined the process by which nursing faculty members convey caring to under- graduate nursing students. The research questions were:

What is the meaning of caring to faculty members and nursing students? How do faculty members com- municate this meaning to nurs- ing students?

rn How does this meaning shape

100-1 04

the students’ experiences? The investigator searched for a

nursing education program that strongly emphasizes caring or val- ues congruent with caring in its philosophy and conceptual frame- work. She analyzed this informa- tion using the nursing metapara- digm dimensions of person, nurs- ing, environment, and health, focusing on the use of the words cure and curing and terms associ- ated with values congruent with these two words.

After interviewing nursing pro- gram directors to verify the accu- racy of her analysis, the investiga- tor selected an associate degree nursing program in New Mexico as the study site. The program had 68 students whose ethnicity was 43% Native American, 16% His- panic, 40% Caucasian, and one Indian from India. All six faculty members were Caucasian. The investigator interviewed the six faculty members and a conve- nience sample of 12 students who were ethnically representative of the student body.

The investigator asked faculty members to identify values that underlie nursing and to describe how they teach those values to nursing students. She asked the students to identify the values they thought were important in nursing, to describe what they were leam- ing about nursing values, and to describe how they were acquiring this knowledge.

The investigator observed classroom sessions to determine content and teaching methods related to values. She interviewed faculty members a second time to validate what the faculty members had reported in their initial inter- views and to verify what she had observed in the classroom sessions. The investigator analyzed

1127 AORN JOURNAL

JUNE 1996, VOL 63, NO 6

the program’s philosophy and con- ceptual framework for philosophi- cal emphasis, organizing ideas, and structure.

During data collection, the investigator coded and recoded the interview and observation data for values congruent with m caring, m definitions of caring within

nursing, m teaching methods used to con-

vey caring, what students were learning about caring as integral to nurs- ing, and interpersonal behaviors among participants. The investigator noted that the

data were similar to the 10 cara- tive factors described by M. Jean Watson, RN, PhD, FAAN, in 1979. To explore this similarity, the investigator analyzed the coded data for congruence with the carative factors and discovered that the study data reflected all 10 carative factors. The investigator decided that the carative factors could serve as a superimposed coding scheme and subjected these results to content analysis. The investigator considered the predominating factors as major themes within the data.

ability and validity of the data by comparing faculty member and student interview data, by verify- ing faculty members’ reports about what and how they were teaching, and by conducting fol- low-up interviews with faculty members to compare the investi- gator’s understanding of the class- room observations with faculty members’ interpretation of their words and actions.

The content analysis revealed agreement between faculty mem- bers and students on the four cara-

The investigator addressed reli-

tive factors that were present most frequently. The investigator used these four factors as descriptors of the four major themes that emerged from the data. The four themes were

formation of a humanistic- altruistic system of values, cultivation of sensitivity to one’s self and to others, promotion of interpersonal teaching-learning, and provision for a supportive, pro- tective, and/or corrective men- tal, physical, sociocultural, and spiritual environment.

Each of these four factorshhemes was evident within the data at least two to three times more fre- quently than any of the other six carative factors.

The investigator validated the interview statements by searching classroom observation notes for descriptions of values presented and notations of the methods by which these values were commu- nicated to students. The investiga- tor noted behaviors and didactic content that matched the oral state- ments given by faculty members and students in their interviews.

The investigator used partici- pants’ words to present the four themes. The participants’ words described

patients and students as indi- viduals, respect for the value of others, the healthiness and openness of the relations among faculty members and between faculty members and students, the need for self-awareness, and the importance of support and acceptance. The investigator concluded that

the faculty members practiced val- ues that were congruent with car- ing and that they were able to

communicate these values to stu- dents by making the values real in classroom settings. Several faculty members commented that the interpersonal environment in the program was healthy and that fac- ulty members had caring relation- ships with each other and with nursing students.

tiOnS. As nurses, we frequently interact with nursing students in perioperative settings. We can use the fiidings of this study to exam- ine what we are teaching students about caring for surgical patients. Do we perceive ourselves as car- ing for surgical patients as individ- uals? Are we aware of the individ- uality of our patients, our peers, and ourselves? What types of rela- tionships do we demonstrate to students? What messages do our behaviors send to nursing stu- dents? Are we propagating caring behaviors?

Our statements and behaviors convey powerful messages to stu- dents, patients, physicians, and peers. The way we perceive our- selves and the world around us affects the way we act on those perceptions. If we accept that car- ing is basic to perioperative nurs- ing, then it is important for us to be aware of how we demonstrate caring and how our actions affect the people around us. As perioper- ative nurses, we must care for our patients and teach these caring behaviors to other health care providers and future perioperative nurses. By truly caring for periop- erative patients, we demonstrate that every surgical patient needs and deserves a perioperative nurse.

Perioperative nursing irnpiicah

ANITA JO SHOUP RN, MSN, CNOR

1995-1 996 CHAIR NURSINQ RESEARCH COMMITTEE

1128 AORN JOURNAL