4.5 Article

A Phenomenological Study of Nurse Managers' and Assistant Nurse Managers' Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 1525-1534

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13304

关键词

COVID-19; nurse managers; leadership; phenomenology; qualitative research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the experiences of hospital nurse managers and assistant nurse managers in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting their focus on providing psychosocial support to front-line nurses while also experiencing stress and exhaustion themselves.
Aim To understand the experiences of hospital nurse managers and assistant nurse managers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Background Little research has been published about the experiences of nurse managers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Experiences of front-line nurses have been well documented. This is the first phenomenological study to date in the United States on experiences of hospital nurse managers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Phenomenological qualitative approach. Methods Thirteen managers, seven nurse managers and six assistant nurse managers were interviewed about their experiences using audio-video teleconferencing and a semi-structured interview guide. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research criteria for reporting qualitative research were used. Results The four major themes that emerged were as follows: being there for everyone; leadership challenges; struggles, support and coping; and strengthening my role. There were 11 subthemes. Conclusions A major focus of nurse managers during the pandemic was psychosocial support of front-line nurses while at the same time experiencing stress and exhaustion themselves. Implications for nursing management More attention on the psychosocial needs of nurse managers, interventions to allay their exhaustion and provisions for readily available support are warranted.

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

4.5
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