Search

Aims: To explore the relationship between nurse practitioner work environment and nurse practitioner outcomes (job satisfaction and intent to leave) in the United States. Design The study used a cross‐sectional survey design to collect survey data from primary care nurse practitioners in six states in the United States. Methods: We sent mail surveys to 5689 eligible nurse practitioners in Arizona, New Jersey, Washington, Pennsylvania, California and Texas. The mail also contained an online link. Participants could complete either the paper or online questionnaire. In total, 1244 participants completed the survey in 2018–2019. The work environment was measured using the Nurse Practitioner‐Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire comprised of four subscales: Nurse Practitioner‐Administration Relations, Nurse Practitioner‐Physician Relations, Independent Practice and Support and Professional Visibility. Global items measured job satisfaction and intent to leave. We used mixed‐effect proportional‐odds cumulative logit models to assess the association between work environment and job satisfaction and intent to leave. Results: Overall, 90% of participants were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their job and 22% reported intent to leave their job in 1 year. With a one‐unit increase in the organizational‐level Nurse Practitioner‐Administration Relations score, the odds of having a higher job satisfaction level increased by about four times and the odds of intent to leave job decreased by about 60%. A higher organizational‐level Nurse Practitioner‐Physician Relations score was significantly associated with higher job satisfaction and lower odds of intent to leave. Conclusion: Improvements in work environments may improve nurse practitioner job satisfaction and retention. Impact This study examined the relationship between work environment, job satisfaction and turnover intention of nurse practitioners. Better work environment is associated with higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intention. Findings have implications for clinical leadership who can take actions to create better work environments to increase the nurse practitioner workforce capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible Summary: What is already known about this topic?: Individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) have elevated risks for physical health problems and low screening rates.No previous studies have compared the physical health promotion needs of people with SMI using the same screening tool across different international settings. What this paper adds to existing knowledge?: It appears feasible to use the HIP to profile and compare physical health‐related risks in people with SMI across different international settings.The HIP tool identified significant differences in areas of risk across the four countries. What are the implications for practice?: The HIP could be used to identify unique clusters of health promotion needs in different countries.Use of HIP health checks may support implementation of individualized interventions. Introduction: To date, no studies have contrasted physical health profiles of people with severe mental illness (SMI) in different countries. Aim: To evaluate feasibility of using the Health Improvement Profile (HIP) to compare and contrast physical health and health behaviours of people with SMI from four countries. Method: An observational feasibility study using secondary analysis of pooled health state and lifestyle data. Physical health checks using modified versions of HIP were administered in four countries. Results: Findings suggest feasibility of HIP screening to profile and compare physical health and health behaviours of people with SMI across international settings. High overall numbers of risk items (red flags) were identified in all but the Thailand sample. Despite some commonalities, there were important differences in health profiles across countries. Discussion: This is the first study to demonstrate feasibility of the HIP to compare health risks in individuals with SMI across countries. Future multi‐national HIP studies should recruit a fully powered stratified random sample of people with SMI that is representative of each setting. Implications for practice: It appears feasible to utilize the HIP to identify specific areas of health risk in different countries, which may help to better focus nursing interventions and use of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]