Search

The aim of this study was to explore the obstacles to and the opportunities for achieving optimal interprofessional team collaboration with the introduction of the nurse practitioner (NP). A team approach can contribute importantly to sustainable and safe patient care, and NPs have been added to the healthcare team in many countries. Following the international trend towards the development of the acute care NP, the role has recently been initiated in surgical care in Sweden. The introduction of an advanced nursing role into existing organisations raises questions about how the role will be developed and what its effects will be on collaboration between the different professions. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies using the meta-ethnographic approach developed by Noblit and Hare. Literature in the field of nursing was searched on PubMed and CINAHL, and empirical qualitative studies from outpatient and inpatient care in seven countries were included. The studies were appraised according to national guidelines and templates and were analysed and synthesised according to the meta-ethnographic approach. A total of 26 studies were included in the synthesis. The analysis revealed four themes: (i) a threat to professional boundaries, (ii) a resource for the team, (iii) the quest for autonomy and control, and (iv) necessary properties of a developing interprofessional collaboration. Based on these themes, the synthesis was created and presented as a metaphorical journey. The implementation of a new nursing role in a traditional healthcare team is a complex process influenced by many factors and can be described as a tortuous journey towards a partially unknown destination. The synthesised obstacles and opportunities drawn from international studies may help healthcare organisations and new NPs prepare for, and optimise, the implementation of a new nursing role.

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O‟Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Intimidation and disruptive behavior can undermine patient care and cause staff dissatisfaction and turnover of professionals in the health care setting. These behaviors have been linked to patient safety issues, nurse satisfaction, nurse retention, as well as ineffective communication and collaboration (Fontaine & Gerardi, 2005; Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), 2004; Martin, 2008; Rosenstein & O'Daniel, 2005). The Joint Commission has made recommendations to reduce the incidence of disruptive behaviors. Hospitals are being asked to take responsibility, hold physicians accountable for their actions, and address workplace intimidation (ISMP, 2004; Rosenstein & O'Daniel, 2005; The Joint Commission, July 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine the perception of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. Differences, if any, between perceptions and the frequency and effects of intimidation and disruptive behaviors was investigated. Data collected from identified variables can assist hospital administrators to understand the perceptions of intimidation and disruptive behaviors in their organizations and identify contributing factors that negatively affect those working in the health care setting. This investigation utilized a convenience sample of nurses and administrators working in two hospital settings in a Midwest rural state. A pilot study with a sample size of 7 and a larger convenience study with a sample size of 104 were used. This addressed the power analysis recommendation for at least 98 in the sample. This sample size will reduce the likelihood of a Type II error. The first research questions investigated was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency among nurses with varying levels of work experience?” The second research question was, “What is the difference, if any, of perception of the effects of intimidation and disruptive behavior frequency amon

Aim This paper reports a study of workplace aggression among nurses in Tasmania, Australia. Background There is international concern about a perceived rise in occupational violence as a major worldwide public health problem, with associated financial costs. There is reason to suspect that aggression towards nurses is increasing. For example, increased illicit drug use puts nurses at the sharp end in managing patients admitted with drug-related problems. Such people are often resistant to healthcare intervention, and often have associated disorders, including mental illness. Despite this increased awareness, comprehensive data on occupational violence in nursing are not available. Method A specially designed questionnaire was sent to all nurses registered with the Nursing Board of Tasmania (n ¼ 6326) in November/December 2002, with 2407 usable questionnaires returned. The response rate was 38%. Findings A majority of respondents (63Æ5%) had experienced some form of aggression (verbal or physical abuse) in the four working weeks immediately prior to the survey. Patients/clients or their visitors were identified as the main perpetrators, followed by medical and nursing colleagues. Abuse influenced nurses’ distress, their desire to stay in nursing, their productivity and the potential to make errors, yet they were reluctant to make their complaints ‘official’. As well as reporting high levels of verbal and physical abuse, nurses were distressed because they could not provide the appropriate care to meet patients’ needs. Few working environments were free of aggression. Conclusion Future research should try to determine the specific factors, including staff characteristics and environment, associated with the high levels of aggression reported in ‘hot spots’ where, on the basis of the present results, many staff experience high levels of verbal and physical abuse. Unless managers take steps to improve the situation, attrition from the profession for this reason will con