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]

Aims This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]