4.6 Article

Organizational readiness for implementing change in acute care hospitals: An analysis of a cross-sectional, multicentre study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 2798-2808

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.13801

关键词

commitment; efficacy; nurses; readiness for change; secondary analysis; quantitative; work environment

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To assess nurse-reported organizational readiness for implementing change in acute care hospitals. Background An organization's success at implementing new policies and programmes depends largely on its stakeholders' readiness for change. Organizational readiness is a multilevel, multifaceted construct associated with staffing, leadership and quality of care. Design This is a secondary analysis of the cross-sectional multicentre Matching Registered Nurse Services with Changing Care Demands study. Methods In 23 acute care hospitals across Switzerland, 1,833 nurses working in 124 units completed a survey between September 2015 and January 2016. Organizational readiness was measured with two subscales: change commitment and change efficacy. Work environment factors were assessed using the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index. Results Nurses were positive about implementing change in their hospitals. Intraclass correlation was higher at the unit level than at the hospital level for both change commitment and change efficacy. Nursing foundation for quality of care and supportive leadership were positively associated with readiness, change commitment and change efficacy. However, staffing and resource adequacy was positively associated only with change efficacy. No association was found with standardized staffing. Conclusion While organizational readiness scores vary among hospitals and units, they are positively associated with supportive leadership and a foundation for quality of care. Further research should consider organizational readiness as an important factor of change and ultimately of the quality of care.

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