4.3 Article

Violence risks in nursing - results from the European 'NEXT' Study

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 107-114

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqm142

关键词

burnout; Europe; health care workers; social support; teamwork; turnover; violence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recent research suggests that violence in health care is increasing and that it strongly influences the recruitment and retention of nurses as well as sick leave and burnout levels. Aims To identify the prevalence of violence in nursing and to provide a basis for appropriate interventions. Methods Nurses from 10 European countries answered to a questionnaire and to a follow-up assessment. Stepwise adjusted multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between frequency of violence, factors related to teamwork and other work-related factors and outcomes, such as burnout, intention to leave nursing and intention to change institution. Results A total of 39 894 nurses responded to the baseline questionnaire (51% response rate). After adjustment for age, gender and other risk factors, quality of teamwork appeared to be a major factor with odds ratio (OR) 1.35 (1.24-1.48) for medium quality and 1.52 (1.33-1.74) for low quality. Uncertainty regarding patients' treatments was linked with violence, with a clear gradient (OR 1.59, 1.47-1.72 for medium uncertainty and 2.13, 1.88-2.41 for high uncertainty). Working only night shift was at high risk (OR 2.17, 1.76-2.67). High levels of time pressure and physical load were associated with violence OR 1.45 (1.24-1.69) and 1.84 (1.66-2.04), respectively. High and medium frequency of violence was associated with higher levels of burnout, intent to leave nursing and intent to change institution. A 1-year follow-up assessment indicated stability in the relationships between outcomes. Conclusion This study supports efforts aimed at improving teamwork-related factors as they are associated with a decrease in violence against nurses.

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

4.3
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