3.8 Article

Role stressors and coping strategies among nurse managers

期刊

LEADERSHIP IN HEALTH SERVICES
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 29-43

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/LHS-04-2016-0015

关键词

Management effectiveness; Stress; Organizational structure; Health services; Health care; Quality of working life; Manager

资金

  1. Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, New Investigator Establish Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to share preliminary evidence about nurse managers' (NMs) role stressors and coping strategies in acute health-care facilities in Western Canada. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative exploratory inquiry provides deeper insight into NMs' perceptions of their role stressors, coping strategies and factors and practices in the organizational context that facilitate and hinder their work. A purposeful sample of 17 NMs participated in this study. Data were collected through individual interviews and a focus group interview. Braun and Clarke's (2006) six phase approach to thematic analysis guided data analysis. Findings - Evidence demonstrates that individual factors, organizational practices and structures affect NMs stress creating an evolving role with unrealistic expectations, responding to continuous organizational change, a fragmented ability to effectively process decisions because of work overload, shifting organizational priorities and being at risk for stress-related ill health. Practical implications - These findings have implications for organizational support, intervention programs that enhance leadership approaches, address individual factors and work processes and redesigning the role in consideration of the role stress and work complexity affecting NMs health. Originality/value - It is anticipated that health-care leaders would find these results concerning and inspire them to take action to support NMs to do meaningful work as a way to retain existing managers and attract front line nurses to positions of leadership.

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

3.8
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