4.6 Article

Professional autonomy and job satisfaction: survey of critical care nurses in mainland Greece

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 66, 期 11, 页码 2520-2531

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05424.x

关键词

critical care nurses; job satisfaction; professional autonomy; role ambiguity; role conflict; survey

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. This paper is a report of a study conducted to describe Greek critical care nurses' views on professional autonomy and its relationship with job satisfaction and other work-related variables. Background. Professional autonomy is generally considered a highly desirable nursing attribute and a major factor in nurse job satisfaction. In the critical care environment, a high level of accountability, responsibility and autonomy are required to optimize outcomes of critically unstable patients. Method. A questionnaire survey was conducted with a convenience sample of Greek critical care nurses (n = 431; response rate 70%) in 2007. Data were collected on professional autonomy, job satisfaction, role conflict and role ambiguity. Results. Overall, nurses reported acting moderately autonomously. Younger nurses reported statistically significant lower levels of autonomy. Higher levels of autonomy were reported by female nurses. Multiple logistic regression revealed that appointment level, type of critical care unit and registration with a professional organization were independently associated with autonomy. A positive moderate association was found between reported autonomy, job satisfaction, role conflict and role ambiguity, but there was no relationship between job satisfaction and reported role conflict and role ambiguity. Conclusion. Further education, role enhancement and support are required for nurses working in critical care in Greece if they are to achieve the maximum potential of their professional role. Failure to address the perceptions of professional autonomy may have an impact on staff retention, because of job dissatisfaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据