4.3 Article

PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY, COLLABORATION WITH PHYSICIANS, AND MORAL DISTRESS AMONG EUROPEAN INTENSIVE CARE NURSES

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 E41-E52

出版社

AMER ASSOC CRITICAL CARE NURSES
DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2012205

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Discretionary autonomy is a key factor in enhanced patient outcomes and nurses' work satisfaction. Among nurses, insufficient autonomy can result in moral distress. Objectives To explore levels of autonomy among European critical care nurses and potential associations of autonomy with nurse-physician collaboration, moral distress, and nurses' characteristics. Methods Descriptive correlational study of a convenience sample of 255 delegates attending a major European critical care conference in 2009. Respondents completed a self-administered questionnaire with validated scales for nurses' autonomy, nurse-physician collaboration, and moral distress. Results The mean autonomy score (84.26; SD, 11.7; range, 18-108) and the mean composite (frequency and intensity) moral distress score (73.67; SD, 39.19; range, 0-336) were both moderate. The mean collaboration score was 47.85 (SD, 11.63; range, 7-70). Italian and Greek nurses reported significantly lower nurse-physician collaboration than did other nurses (P<.001). Greek and German nurses reported significantly higher moral distress (P<.001). Autonomy scores were associated with nurse-physician collaboration scores (P<.001) and with a higher frequency of moral distress (P=.04). Associations were noted between autonomy and work satisfaction (P=.001). Frequency of moral distress was associated inversely with collaboration (rho=-0.339; P<.001) and autonomy (rho=-0.210; P=.01) and positively with intention to quit (rho=0.257; P=.004). Conclusions In this sample of European intensive care nurses, lower autonomy was associated with increased frequency and intensity of moral distress and lower levels of nurse-physician collaboration. (American Journal of Critical Care. 2012; 21(2): e41-e52)

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