4.6 Editorial Material

Conservation of resources theory in nurse burnout and patient safety

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 73, 期 11, 页码 2558-2565

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.13348

关键词

burnout; Conservation of Resources theory; nurses; patient safety and shift work

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To examine how the Conservation of Resources theory explains burnout in the nursing profession. Background: Burnout, which is an accumulation of work-related mental stress in people-oriented occupations, has been an issue of concern for decades for health-care workers, especially nurses. Yet, few studies have examined a unified theory that explains the aetiology, progression and consequences of nurse burnout. Design: This discussion article integrates current knowledge on nurse burnout using Conservation of Resources theory, which focuses on four resources (i.e., objects, conditions, personal characteristics and energy). Data sources: The databases that were used in this study included CINAHL, PubMed and PsycINFO. All reviewed articles were published between January 2006 - June 2016. Findings: The Conservation of Resources theory explains that burnout will occur as a result of perceived or actual loss of these four resources. Furthermore, nurse burnout could affect work performance, leading to lower alertness and overall quality of care. Implications for nursing: Healthcare organizations and nursing administration should develop strategies to protect nurses from the threat of resource loss to decrease nurse burnout, which may improve nurse and patient safety. The Conservation of Resources theory can guide interventions to decrease burnout and future research that examines the relationship between professional nurse burnout and patient safety. Conclusion: The Conservation of Resources theory explains the aetiology, progression and consequences of nurse burnout. Future studies must explore whether nurse performance is a mediating factor between nurse burnout and patient safety.

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