Australian Critical Care 26 (2013) 81–98 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Australian Critical Care journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aucc PAPERS AND POSTER ABSTRACTS The 37th Australian and New Zealand Scientific Meeting on Intensive Care and the 18th Annual Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Conference, Adelaide, Australia, October 2012 Nursing Scholarship Papers Health consumers’ experiences in Australian critical care units: Implications for critical care nurses’ educational preparation F. Gill 1,∗ , G. Leslie 2 , C. Grech 3 , J. Latour 4 1 Princess Margaret Hospital For Children & School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health Science, Curtin University, Australia 2 School of Nursing & Midwifery, Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Faculty Health Science, Curtin University, Australia 3 School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of South Australia, Australia 4 Department of Pediatrics, Intensive Care Neonatology, Erasmus MC – Sophia Children’s Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Winner: Best Nursing Scholarship Prize sponsored by ACCCN Introduction: Considerable variation exists across critical care nurse education programs despite the use of professional com- petency standards to inform curricula, assess competency and articulate graduate outcomes. Notably, there is a lack of health consumer input into programs. Objectives: To explore the views of former patients and fami- lies about their experiences with critical care nurses and seek their input into critical care nurses’ educational preparation and practice. Methods: A qualitative design using focus groups and inter- views. Patients and family members who had experienced critical care in an Intensive Care Unit (adult or paediatric) or Coronary Care Unit were purposively selected. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes of importance to participants. Results: There were 17 participants in 3 focus groups and 5 individual interviews which were guided by two preselected cat- egories: (a) the role of the critical care nurse and; (b) minimum practice standards for critical care course graduates. For category (a) physical patient care and socio-emotional support of patients and family were reported as important. Socio-emotional support included five subthemes; communication, people skills, facilitating family presence, advocacy and inconsistency. These components were reflected in category (b); talking and listening skills, relat- ing to and dealing with stressed people, individualizing care and, patient and family advocacy. Conclusion: The inconsistencies described in the provision of socio-emotional support reinforce the need for minimum practice standards for the preparation of qualified critical care nurses. Such standards informed by health consumers’ views need to be explic- itly described in curricula and instruments developed to assess core critical care competencies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2013.02.003 Assumed understandings of ‘organ donation’ conversations H. Northam ∗ , M. Cruickshank, G. Hercelinskyj University of Canberra, Australia Introduction: In Australia, efforts are under way to significantly increase rates of organ and tissue donation for transplantation. The requirement to translate community support for donation into agreement to donate often occurs in the critical care setting. It is possible that ‘family’ understandings of terminology used by health professionals when discussing organ and tissue donation may be poorly understood. Objectives: To provide insight into the dissonance between the community understandings of the terminology ‘organ donation’ expressed in the public conversation, which may not align with professional use of the terms in the critical care environment. Methods: A PhD study entitled “The factors that influence fam- ilies to decline organ donation” is in progress. This project has used an exploratory case study approach with a qualitative snowball sampling recruitment strategy. Following ethics approval, family members who had made an organ donation decision for a deceased relative within the previous three years were invited to participate in the study. An unexpected difficulty in the recruitment process related to the dissonance in public understandings of working def- initions used in clinical practice. Results: Community and ‘family’ understanding of terminol- ogy used by health professionals when discussing organ and tissue donation may be poorly understood. There are a range of assump- tions held in the community about the process of ‘organ donation’ which may not align with clinical practice in critical care. 1036-7314/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2013.02.002