Search

Pillay R. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2010; : 545-554 Defining a competency-based model for nursing management development will help to establish core competencies for nursing managers which will not only strengthen their practice and provide further learning and development opportunities, but will also provide the basis to focus training and professional development efforts. This paper identifies the competencies important for effective nursing management in the public and private health sectors. A total of 420 senior nursing managers in South Africa were surveyed using a self-administered questionnaire. Respondents had to rate the importance of 51 competency items as it pertains to effective nursing management. elf-management, ontrolling, ealth/clinical, rganizing, eople management, lanning and thical/legal competencies were found the most valuable for optimal nursing management. These findings reflect the reality of the nursing management milieu and will be useful in the design and delivery of management development programmes aimed at enhancing nursing management 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]

Aims and objectives: To examine underlying factor structure of the Critical Care Family Needs Inventory—Emergency Department across three countries to identify similarities and differences. Background: Understanding family needs assists nurses to provide family‐centred care to deliver optimal outcomes for critically ill patients and their families in Emergency Departments. Design: Retrospective secondary analyses of data collected in three cross‐sectional surveys. Methods: Convenience samples involved recruitment of family members accompanying a critically ill relative into four Emergency Departments in Australia (2), South Africa (1) and Taiwan (1). Item‐matched raw data from 374 responses to 40 items from the surveys were collated and analysed using confirmatory factor analysis methods. Reporting adhered to an adapted STROBE checklist. Results: The factor structure of the 40‐item Critical Care Family Needs Inventory—Emergency Department differed between countries. Analyses of the Australian data revealed a four‐factor solution comprised of 18 items across four categories of family need (support, communication, participation and comfort); the Taiwanese data also demonstrated a four‐factor solution comprised of 13 items (support, communication, participation and comfort); alternatively, the South African data revealed a two‐factor solution comprised of nine items (communication and participation). Fifteen items did not match across the countries. However, loading for four items common across all three countries was related to family participation (3) and communication (1). Conclusions: The findings suggest family members from different countries responded to Critical Care Family Needs Inventory—Emergency Department items in different ways. Consistent with concepts of family‐centred care, the study identified participation and communication needs that were common across the countries. The outcomes illustrate the challenge of providing appropriate care for family members during critical illness of a relative in the ED. Relevance to clinical practice: Family perceptions of important needs during critical illness in the Emergency Department differ across countries; hence, the Critical Care Family Needs Inventory—Emergency Department has limited utility. Participation and communication needs emerged as common family needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]