4.5 Article

Moral sensitivity and person-centred care among mental health nurses in South Korea: A cross-sectional study

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
卷 30, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.13554

关键词

ethics; mental health; morals; nurses; patient-centred care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to identify the predictors of mental health nurses' person-centred care, including moral sensitivity. The results showed that moral sensitivity was the most potent predictor of person-centred care.
Aim To identify the predictors of mental health nurses' person-centred care, including moral sensitivity. Background Person-centred care meets patients' ethical needs by protecting their autonomy and dignity and respecting their choices; it is essential to enhance patient outcomes. Therefore, it is important to identify the predictors of the practice of advocating patients' rights and dignity and providing person-centred care among mental health nurses to foster competency and ensure the highest quality of care. Methods This cross-sectional study included 220 mental health nurses in South Korea. It measured their general and work-related characteristics, moral sensitivity, and person-centred care. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify the person-centred care predictors. Results The most potent person-centred care predictor was moral sensitivity (beta = .35, p < .001). Other predictors included prior biomedical ethics education (beta = .15, p = .013) and marital status (beta = .14, p = .025). The regression model had 28.0% explanatory power. Conclusions Mental health nurses' moral sensitivity must be increased to improve their person-centred care. Implications for Nursing Management Nurses should receive continuous education to remain aware of and maintain a high level of moral sensitivity and be encouraged to continue the person-centred practice. Organizational and policy support is needed to promote the practice of person-centred care in the workplace.

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