Aim: This study aims to explore the disciplinary processes for nurses, from organizational supervision to final decisions by the Finnish regulatory authority.Background: Regulatory authorities are responsible for protecting the public, by ensuring that they receive safe, competent and ethical nursing care, but little is known about the disciplinary processes for nurses.Methods: This is a retrospective document analysis of 296 disciplinary decisions by the Finnish regulatory authority from 2007 to 2016. The data were analysed using a quantitative design with descriptive statistics.Results: We studied 204 disciplined nurses (81.4% female) with a mean age of 43.5 years. The disciplinary process comprised organizational supervision, complaints, investigations and decisions. Nurses with substance abuse issues were more likely to face criminal investigations and receive temporary decisions. The process lasted from under 1 month to years and could have profound effects on nurses, colleagues and nurse managers and compromise patient safety. Conclusion:This study identified key factors that could inform the disciplinary processes for nurses. More knowledge is needed about how organisations ensure patient safety when unprofessional conduct is suspected.Implications for Nursing Management: Retaining nursing professionals is vital due to global shortages, and more attention should be paid to organizational supervision and support for nurses during disciplinary processes.
Patient-centredness in care is a core healthcare value and an effective healthcare delivery design requiring specific nurse competences. The aim of this study was to assess (1) the reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Finnish version of the Patient-centred Care Competency (PCC) scale and (2) Finnish nurses’ self-assessed level of patient-centred care competency. The PCC was translated to Finnish (PCC-Fin) before data collection and analyses: descriptive statistics; Cronbach’s alpha coefficients; item analysis; exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses; inter-scale correlational analysis; and sensitivity. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were acceptable, high for the total scale, and satisfactory for the four sub-scales. Item analysis supported the internal homogeneity of the items-to-total and inter-items within the sub-scales. Explorative factor analysis suggested a three-factor solution, but the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the four-factor structure (Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) 0.92, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) 0.99, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.065, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) 0.045) with 61.2% explained variance. Analysis of the secondary data detected no differences in nurses’ self-evaluations of contextual competence, so the inter-scale correlations were high. The PCC-Fin was found to be a reliable and valid instrument for the measurement of nurses’ patient-centred care competence. Rasch model analysis would provide some further information about the item level functioning within the instrument.
Background The occupational well-being (OW) of educators can be defined as a balance between resources and workload factors as seen from four aspects of working life: (i) individual, (ii) working conditions, (iii) professional competence and (iv) work community. The research in this study examined the individual aspect as particular importance to the physical and mental workability of educators. Aims To study the individual aspect of the OW of educators as well as the associating factors. Methods A cross-sectional survey design was conducted among educators working in health and social care education in Finland. The data were collected with an electronic survey using the ‘Occupational well-being of social and health care teachers—index questionnaire’. The data were analysed with an SPSS version 27 using descriptive statistics, explorative factor analysis and linear regression analysis. Results The educators (n = 552, response rate 31%) assessed their resources for managing their mental workload as quite poor (2.41, standard deviation [SD] 0.98). In addition, workplace support promoting OW was assessed as being quite poor (2.37, SD 0.88), and as especially requiring more measures during working hours. Associations with the individual aspect of OW were found between the personal and work-related background variables as well as overall OW. Conclusions The perceptions of the educators indicated that resources to cope with workload factors should be promoted. Investing in educators’ resources at work, enabling well-being actions during working hours and avoiding backlog situations would all help promote the educators’ OW.
Radiography science is a new discipline among health sciences. It is a discipline that investigates phenomena in medical imaging, radiation therapy, and nuclear medicine. It has merged from the need to provide research evidence to support these services. The domain of the discipline needs clarification and more research should be focused on its paradigmatic issues. Radiography research priorities have been previously charted on a national level in different countries but the viewpoint has been that of the needs of the profession, not of the discipline. This study aimed to identify the priorities of the discipline. The method chosen was a modified version of the Delphi technique with two rounds. The expert panel consisted of 24 European radiography researchers with long professional experience. This study shows that the research priorities in radiography science are related to the phenomena of radiographers' profession, clinical practices, and the safe and high‐quality use of radiation and technology for medical imaging, radiotherapy, and nuclear medicine. Identifying these priorities can help focus research onto most important topics and clarify disciplinary perspective.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.