3.8 Article

Levels of Violence Among Nurses in Cape Town Public Hospitals

期刊

NURSING FORUM
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 207-217

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6198.2009.00144.x

关键词

Bullying; covert violence; horizontal violence; overt violence; physical violence; psychological violence; verbal abuse; vertical violence; violence among nurses

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. The paper presents findings from a study examining violence in nursing. DESIGN. A combined ethno-phenomenology was identified as the most appropriate approach. Ethnography is to understand the culture of nursing that permits violence to occur within the profession. Phenomenology is to explore and capture nurse-on-nurse experiences of violence. The population is all nurses registered with the South African Nursing Council. The research participants are nurses employed in eight public hospitals in Cape Town during 2005. METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION. The first stage of data collection was the distributions of confidential questionnaires to nurses employed in eight hospitals and willing to participate in the study. ANALYSIS. Responses to close-ended questions were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Responses to open-ended questions were grouped per question. The qualitative data were then compared for similarities and differences in information provided. CONCLUSIONS. Six levels of violence exist among nurses. The highest forms of violence among nurses occurred at the psychological level, with the least at the physical level of interaction. The other four levels of violence among nurses were vertical, horizontal, covert, and overt. All categories of nurses in the study had resorted to one or more levels of violence against other nurses during their nursing career. Professional nurses and senior nurse managers were identified as the main category of nurses that frequently resort to mistreating other nurses. However, auxiliary nurses were identified as the main perpetrators of physical violence against other nurses.

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