4.6 Article

Correlation between the quality of nursing handover, job satisfaction, and group cohesion among psychiatric nurses

期刊

BMC NURSING
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12912-022-00864-8

关键词

Psychiatric nurses; Quality of nursing handover; Job satisfaction; Group cohesion

类别

资金

  1. Medical Science and Technology Development Project of Shandong Mental Health Center [2019YJ01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the quality of handovers among psychiatric nurses and found that job satisfaction and group cohesion could predict handover quality. Job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between group cohesion and handover quality.
Background Nursing handovers are a critical component of patient safety. Researchers have performed many primary studies in this field, mainly reporting findings from changes in nursing handover patterns. However, few quantitative studies have explored the factors that influence handover quality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of handovers and explore the associations between handover quality, job satisfaction, and group cohesion among psychiatric nurses. Methods This cross-sectional study included 186 registered psychiatric nurses from a Chinese hospital, who responded to the Handover Evaluation Scale, McCloskey/Mueller Satisfaction Scale, and Group Cohesion Scale. Bootstrap analyses were used to evaluate the mediating effect between variables. Results The average item score for handover quality was (5.85 +/- 1.14), and job satisfaction and group cohesion could predict the variance of handover quality. Job satisfaction could partially mediate between group cohesion and handover quality, and the value of the mediating effect was 45.77%. Conclusion The quality of psychiatric nursing handovers has enhanced space. Thus, hospital managers should take various measures to strengthen group cohesion and promote job satisfaction, both of which help improve the quality of psychiatric nursing handovers.

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