4.5 Review

Nurse managers' competencies: A scoping review

Journal

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 1410-1419

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13380

Keywords

competencies; nurse executive; nurse manager; scoping review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study describes and synthesizes nurse managers' competencies, highlighting 53 competencies, with communication and finance identified as the most important. Understanding these competencies is crucial for organizations to develop competent managers.
Aim To describe and synthesize scientific literature on nurse managers' competencies. Background The key strategy for the success of health organisations currently resides in the capacity of the nurse manager to develop advanced competencies in management. However, there is a lack of systematic reviews that synthesize knowledge about nurse managers' competencies. Evaluation A scoping review was conducted using electronic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Key issues After the first analysis, 392 competencies were observed from 76 studies. Finally, 53 competencies were grouped according to their characteristics. The two most-cited competencies were communication and finance. Conclusions Knowing the competencies required by nurse managers can help organisations create strategies to develop competent managers. In addition, from the results we can infer what might be the core competencies, since 22 main competencies from the total number were identified. Implications for Nursing Management The competencies identified constitute the body of knowledge necessary for nurse managers. In addition, it is possible to generate a pathway for learning and professional development for nurses before they work at the microlevel of management. The starting point for this pathway could be the 22 core competencies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available