Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs Adm > v.24(1) > 1051949

TOOLS
Ahn, Jung, You, and Lee: Nursing Tasks and Practice Environment for Nursing Work Perceived by Nurses Working on Comprehensive Wards versus General Wards
Original Article

J Korean Acad Nurs Adm 2018;24(1):10-20.

Published online: 15 January 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2018.24.1.10

Nursing Tasks and Practice Environment for Nursing Work Perceived by Nurses Working on Comprehensive Wards versus General Wards

Sung Hee Ahn1, Sun Hee Jung1, Jung Hwa You1, Mi-Aie Lee2,

1Department of Nursing, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital

2Department of Nursing, Dongguk University

Corresponding author: Lee, Mi-Aie Department of Nursing, Dongguk University, 123 Dongdae-ro, Gyeongju 38066, Korea. Tel: +82-54-770-2620, Fax: +82-54-770-2616, E-mail: juliet@dongguk.ac.kr

Received 30 August 2017       Revised 16 November 2017       Accepted 23 November 2017

Copyright © 2018 Korean Academy of Nursing Administration

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study was performed to measure the level of nursing tasks and practice environment of nursing work (PENW) perceived by nurses working on comprehensive wards or general wards, and to investigate the relationship between these two variables.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional survey. Participants were 97 nurses working on comprehensive or general wards of one general hospital in Gyeonggido, Korea. Data were collected from October 17 to 21, 2016 using the structured questionnaires and analyzed with SPSS/PC ver 18.0 programs.

Results

The scores for nursing tasks (performance, importance, and knowledge) perceived by nurses working on comprehensive wards were higher than nurses on general wards. The score for PENW perceived by nurses working on comprehensive wards was significantly higher than that of nurses on general wards. For comprehensive ward nurses, there was a relationship between nursing tasks and PENW, but no relationship was found for general ward nurses.

Conclusion

This findings show that nurses working on comprehensive wards evaluate nursing tasks and PENW higher than nurses working on general wards indicating that nursing managers should work to raise the perception of general ward nursing tasks and PENW.

Keywords: Task performance, Practice environment, Nurse, Ward

References

1. You SJ, Kim JH, Jo SH, Choi YG, Kim YM. A demonstration project for the nursing care improvement. Seoul: Korea Health Industry Development Institute;2008. August. Report No: 2008-79.
2. Comprehensive nursing service guidelines. Seoul: National Health Insurance Service;2016.
3. Kim JH, Kim SJ, Park ET, Jeong SY, Lee EH. Policy issues and new direction for comprehensive nursing service in the national health insurance. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2017; 23(3):312–322. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2017;23(3):312-322.
crossref
4. Lee MK, Jung DY. A study of nursing tasks, nurses' job stress and job satisfaction in hospitals with no guardians. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2015; 21(3):287–296. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2015.21.3.287.
crossref
5. Chae YH, Lee WH, Min YM, Shin AM, Kim HM. Nurse's role performance and perception of the importance of role among nurses practicing in a cancer care facility. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2013; 19(3):407–418.
6. Shin SR, Park KY. Comparing satisfaction with nursing care and factors relevant to hospital revisit intent among hospitalized patients in comprehensive nursing care units and general care units. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2045; 21:469–479. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2015.21.5.469.
crossref
7. Yeun YR. Effects of comprehensive nursing service on the nursing performance, job satisfaction and customer orientation among nurses. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 2015; 16(1):317–323. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2015.16(1):317-323.
crossref
8. Kwag WH. Contents and problem for demonstration project about comprehensive nursing service. Healthcare Policy Forum. 2015; 13(2):50–55.
9. Lee MK. A study of nursing tasks, nurses' job stress and job satisfaction in hospitals with no guardians [master's thesis]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;2014.
10. Im JA. Factors affecting turnover intention of nurses in comprehensive nursing care wards: Job stress, emotional labor and burnout [master's thesis]. Incheon: Gachon University;2015.
11. Westernam JW, Simmons BL. The effects of work environment on the personality-performance relationship: An exploratiory study. Journal of Managerial Issues,. 2007; 19(2):228–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/4060568.
12. Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, Lake ET, Cheney T. Effects of hospital care environment on patients mortality and nurse outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2008; 38:223–229. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNA.0000312773.42352.d7.
13. Ko YK. Relationship of nurse practice environment and work-family conflict to job satisfaction in hospital nurses in Korea. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2013; 9(2):207–216. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2013.19.2.207.
crossref
14. Kim JK, Kim MJ, Kim SY, Yu M, Lee KA. Effects of general hospital nurses' work environment on job embeddedness and burnout. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2014; 20(1):69–81. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2014.20.1.69.
crossref
15. Kwon JO, Kim EY. Impact of unit-level nurse practice environment on nurse turnover intention in the small and medium sized hospitals. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2012; 18(4):414–423. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2012.18.4.414.
crossref
16. Park SH, Kang JY. Development and psychometric evaluation of the korean nursing work environment scale. Journal of Korean Critical Care Nursing. 2015; 8(1):50–61.
17. Lake ET, Friese CR. Variations in nursing practice environments: Relation to staffing and hospital characteristics. Nursing Research. 2006; 55(1):1–9.
18. Gil HH. Job analysis of the nursing care service in hospital without a guardian [master's thesis]. Seoul: Hanyang University;2011.
19. Lake ET. Development of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index. Research in Nursing & Health. 2002; 25(3):176–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.10032.
crossref
20. Cho EH, Choi MN, Kim EY, Yoo IY, Lee NJ. Construct validity and reliability of the Korean version of the practice environment scale of nursing work index for Korean nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nurisng. 2011; 41(3):325–332. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2011.41.3.325.
crossref
21. Choi JS, Kim JS. Nurses' perception, knowledge, and it's affecting factors on performance of nursing practice in hospital with no guardian. Journal of Korea Contents Association. 2013; 12(10):403–411. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.10.403.
crossref
22. Park KN, Park MK. A study on nurses' self-leadership, organizational commitment and the nursing performance. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2008; 14(1):63–71.
23. Lee SH, Yoo IY. A study of psychosocial distress, Intention to quit and nursing performance in general ward nurses. Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing. 2010; 19(2):236–245.
24. Choi JS. An analysis of non-value-added nursing activity for improving the efficiency of ward operation [dissertation]. Yongin: Dankook University;2012.
25. Balboni TA. Ng A, Block SD, Balboni MJ, Kachic LA. Stevenson MA, Hong TS, et al. Needs and perception of spiritual care among advanced cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2008; 26(15_suppl):9560–9560. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.26.15_suppl.9560.
26. Kang SY. Concept analysis of spiritual care. Journal Korean Academy of Nursing. 2006; 36(5):803–812.
crossref
27. Lee JY, Pak SY. Relationship between the practice environment of nursing and critical thinking disposition of nurses in local general hospitals. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2014; 20(2):145–153. https://doi.org/10.11111/Jkana.2014.20.2.145.
crossref
28. Seo JA, Lee BS. Effect of work environment on nursing performance of nurses in hemodialysis unit: Focusing on the effects of job satisfaction and empowerment. Journal of Korean Nursing Administration. 2016; 22(2):178–188. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2016.22.2.178.

Table 1.
General Characteristics of Participants (N=97)
Characteristics Categories Comprehensive wards (n=49) General wards (n=48) x2 (p)
n (%) M±SD n (%) M±SD
Tota clinical career (year) ＜1 14 (28.6) 3.55±3.73 8 (16.7) 4.05±3.61 1.34 (.183)
1~＜3 18 (36.7) 15 (31.4)
3~＜5 3 (6.1) 10 (20.8)
5~＜10 9 (18.4) 8 (16.7)
≥10 5 (10.2) 7 (14.4)
Number of night shifts per month (day) ≤4 2 (4.2) 6.94±3.28 2 (4.3) 7.04±2.54 0.17 (.864)
5~7 39 (81.2) 30 (63.8)
≥8 7 (14.6) 15 (31.9)
Fixed night shift work pattern Yes 4 (8.2) 2 (4.2) 0.10 (.419)
No 45 (91.8) 46 (95.8)
Age (year) 21~24 21 (42.9) 26.22±3.92 16 (33.3) 27.23±5.38 0.40 (.694)
25~27 11 (22.4) 18 (37.5)
28~30 12 (24.5) 7 (14.6)
≥31 5 (10.2) 7 (14.6)
Educational level 3-year diploma 11 (22.4) 9 (18.8) 1.11 (.268)
Bachelor 36 (73.5) 34 (70.8)
≥Master 2 (4.1) 5 (10.4)
Marital status Married 4 (8.2) 7 (14.6) 0.05 (.325)
Unmarried 45 (91.8) 41 (85.4)
religion Buddhist 21 (42.8) 22 (45.8) 0.80 (.796)
Christian 2 (4.1) 1 (21.1)
Catholic 2 (4.1) 3 (6.3)
No religion 24 (49.0) 22 (45.8)
Table 2.
Differences of Task Performance, Importance and Knowledge according to Department
Variables Categories Task performance Task importance Task knowledge
M±SD t (p) M±SD t (p) M±SD t (p)
Total Comprehensive wards 3.56±0.41 1.68 4.37±0.38 3.49 4.20±0.47 1.39
General wards 3.42±0.42 (.097) 4.04±0.52 (.001) 4.04±0.57 (.167)
 Respiratory care Comprehensive wards 2.96±0.62 -5.05 4.48±0.36 1.26 4.09±0.54 -0.16
General wards 3.63±0.68 (＜.001) 4.38±0.45 (.210) 4.11±0.65 (.874)
 Medication and blood transfusion Comprehensive wards 4.10±0.43 1.40 4.75±0.36 1.45 4.58±0.52 0.99
General wards 3.98±0.41 (.165) 4.63±0.40 (.150) 4.47±0.52 (.323)
 Safety care Comprehensive wards 3.24±0.65 0.33 4.49±0.44 1.89 4.02±0.65 1.02
General wards 3.19±0.67 (.742) 4.28±0.60 (.062) 3.87±0.74 (.309)
 Measurement and observation Comprehensive wards 4.12±0.28 1.16 4.56±0.40 1.91 4.30±0.50 0.98
General wards 4.04±0.37 (.251) 4.37±0.55 (.059) 4.19±0.61 (.331)
 Nutritional care Comprehensive wards 2.93±0.84 2.88 4.41±0.58 4.15 4.14±0.63 0.93
General wards 2.49±0.65 (.005) 3.79±0.88 (＜.001) 3.99±0.86 (.355)
 Elimination care Comprehensive wards 3.08±0.56 2.20 4.31±0.59 3.40 4.19±0.53 1.26
General wards 2.80±0.68 (.030) 3.84±0.77 (.001) 4.04±0.68 (.211)
 Hygiene care Comprehensive wards 2.74±0.70 2.97 3.74±0.57 3.08 4.00±0.62 0.65
General wards 2.35±0.60 (.004) 3.25±0.95 (.003) 3.90±0.82 (.519)
 Exercise and activity Comprehensive wards 3.79±0.78 2.03 4.29±0.59 3.24 4.17±0.66 0.73
General wards 3.46±0.83 (.045) 3.82±0.83 (.002) 4.07±0.71 (.470)
 Comfort care Comprehensive wards 4.06±0.51 1.47 4.38±0.51 3.38 4.23±0.57 2.04
General wards 3.89±0.62 (.145) 4.00±0.60 (.001) 3.97±0.66 (.044)
 Communication Comprehensive wards 3.54±0.86 1.24 4.22±0.70 3.18 4.04±0.69 2.50
General wards 3.30±1.03 (.218) 3.74±0.78 (.002) 3.64±0.90 (.014)
 Patient nursing management and information management Comprehensive wards 4.28±0.40 2.30 4.40±0.44 3.00 4.32±0.54 1.68
General wards 4.04±0.60 (.024) 4.08±0.58 (.004) 4.11±0.65 (.096)
 Spiritual support Comprehensive wards 1.81±0.55 1.61 3.76±0.66 2.43 3.27±0.89 1.93
General wards 1.59±0.74 (.111) 3.37±0.91 (.017) 2.91±0.95 (.057)

Comprehensive wards: n=49; General wards: n=48.

Table 3.
Differences of Practice Environment of Nursing Work according to Department
Variables Categories M±SD t (p)
 Total Comprehensive wards 2.85±0.43 4.54
General wards 2.45±0.44 (＜.001)
 Nurse participation in hospital affairs Comprehensive wards 2.61±0.50 2.21 (.030)
General wards 2.38±0.53
 Nursing foundations for quality of care Comprehensive wards 3.03±0.41 3.44 (.001)
General wards 2.74±0.42
 Nurse manager ability, Leadership, and support of nurses Comprehensive wards 3.26±0.49 4.70 (＜.001)
General wards 2.76±0.56
 Staffing and resource adequacy Comprehensive wards 2.65±0.76 6.53 (＜.001)
General wards 1.73±0.61
 Collegial nurse-physician relations Comprehensive wards 2.77±0.59 3.17 (.002)
General wards 2.36±0.67

Comprehensive wards: n=49; General wards: n=48.

Table 4.
Differences of Nursing Tasks and Practice Environment of Nursing Work according to General Characteristics of Participants (N=97)
Characteristics Categories Comprehensive wards (n=49) General wards (n=48)
Task performance Task importance Task knowledge PENW Task performance Task importance Task knowledge PENW
 M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé M±SD F or t (p) Scheffé
Total clinical career (year) ＜1a 3.61±0.35 2.11 4.47±0.31 2.75 4.09±0.51 3.21 3.05±0.27 1.86 3.24±0.33 0.60 3.85±0.41 0.92 3.59±0.48 4.16 2.69±0.44 0.77
1~＜3b 3.45±0.40 (.095) 4.24±0.40 (.040) 4.04±0.45 (.021) 2.83±0.51 (.134) 3.47±0.37 (.666) 4.02±0.59 (.464) 4.13±0.44 (.006) 2.42±0.50 (.552)
3~＜5c 3.51±0.44 4.51±0.23 4.16±0.08 2.59±0.17 3.46±0.61 4.01±0.48 3.85±0.62 a＜e 2.36±0.29
5~＜10d 3.84±0.46 4.57±0.27 4.65±0.36 2.84±0.40 3.35±0.33 4.04±0.66 4.07±0.63 2.38±0.34
≥10e 3.32±0.27 4.05±0.45 4.21±0.34 2.53±0.45 3.52±0.41 4.36±0.32 4.61±0.29 2.43±0.58
Number of night shifts per month (day) ≤4a 3.91±0.45 1.48 4.41±0.68 0.20 4.60±0.39 1.22 3.20±0.39 4.37 3.32±0.40 1.43 4.31±0.29 1.08 4.28±0.63 1.99 2.48±0.39 2.61
5~7b 3.55±0.39 (.238) 4.36±0.34 (.980) 4.16±0.46 (.305) 2.89±0.39 (.018) 3.35±0.37 (.251) 3.96±0.55 (.349) 3.92±0.61 (.148) 2.55±0.40 (.085)
≥8c 3.44±0.46 4.35±0.48 4.18±0.54 2.47±0.45 a＞c 3.56±0.50 4.15±0.49 4.24±0.44 2.24±0.47
Fixed night shift work pattern Yes 3.47±0.50 0.66 4.44±0.26 0.67 4.11±0.43 0.73 2.47±0.19 0.06 3.42±0.51 0.00 4.26±0.03 0.35 4.39±0.19 0.78 2.38±1.32 0.53
No 3.56±0.40 (.664) 4.36±0.39 (.674) 4.20±0.48 (.726) 2.88±0.43 (061) 3.41±0.42 (.979) 4.03±0.53 (.557) 4.03±0.58 (.383) 2.45±0.40 (.819)
Age (year) 21~24a 3.52±0.38 1.74 4.36±0.44 1.84 4.00±0.52 4.10 2.95±0.46 1.42 3.31±0.38 0.96 3.85±0.56 1.78 3.87±0.56 3.20 2.53±0.46 0.26
25~27b 3.51±0.43 (.172) 4.36±0.24 (.154) 4.15±0.31 (.012) 2.80±0.37 (.250) 3.51±0.47 (.419) 4.11±0.45 (.165) 3.99±0.56 (.032) 2.39±0.40 (.853)
28~30c 3.76±0.43 4.51±0.28 4.55±0.39 2.84±0.38 3.31±0.36 4.00±0.66 3.99±0.61 a＜d 2.45±0.39
≥31d 3.32±0.27 4.05±0.45 4.21±0.34 2.53±0.45 3.52±0.41 4.36±0.32 4.61±0.29 2.43±0.58
Educational level 3-year diploma 3.53±0.41 0.13 4.34±0.46 1.66 4.27±0.51 0.52 2.98±0.39 0.44 3.55±0.50 2.16 4.30±0.49 1.22 4.23±0.54 0.96 2.70±0.49 0.22
Bachelor 3.57±0.42 (.823) 4.38±0.34 (.730) 4.15±0.47 (.615) 2.81±0.45 (.519) 3.45±0.39 (.107) 4.17±0.49 (.313) 4.06±0.53 (.419) 2.65±0.47 (.883)
≥Master 3.40±0.01 4.18±0.76 4.42±0.37 2.78±0.02 3.63±0.36 4.25±0.34 4.38±0.39 2.50±0.58
Marital status Married 3.56±0.43 0.00 4.54±0.26 0.91 4.43±0.40 1.10 2.92±0.42 0.12 3.42±0.38 0.29 4.29±0.46 0.35 4.33±0.57 1.35 2.50±0.53 1.71
Unmarried 3.56±0.41 (.987) 4.35±0.38 (.344) 4.17±0.48 (.300) 2.84±0.43 (.727) 3.49±0.42 (.596) 4.20±0.48 (.556) 4.09±0.52 (.252) 2.67±0.47 (.198)
religion Buddhist 3.58±0.40 1.54 4.37±0.35 0.14 4.21±0.45 0.86 2.84±0.33 0.64 3.50±0.40 4.14±0.50 4.12±0.54 2.65±0.41
Christian 3.08±0.18 (.217) 4.22±0.71 (.938) 3.98±0.34 (.467) 2.45±0.44 (.593) 3.20±0.25 0.58 4.25±0.51 2.13 3.74±0.47 1.56 2.43±0.31 0.02
Catholic 3.92±0.19 4.46±0.09 4.66±0.00 2.93±0.10 3.79±0.28 (.632) 4.58±0.37 (.109) 4.61±0.28 (.213) 2.65±0.27 (.995)
No religion 3.54±0.41 4.37±0.41 4.15±0.51 2.88±0.52 3.45±0.44 4.23±0.46 4.08±0.52 2.67±0.56

PENW=Practice environment of nursing work.

Table 5.
Relationship of Nursing Tasks and Practice Environment of Nursing Work (N=97)
Variables Comprehensive wards (N=49) General wards (N=48)
Task performance Task importance Task knowledge PENW Task performance Task importance Task knowledge PENW
r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p)
Task performance 1 1
Task importance .50 (＜.001) 1 .53 (＜.001) 1
Task knowledge .59 (＜.001) .59 (＜.001) 1 .50 (＜.001) .50 (＜.001) 1
PENW .31 (.030) .32 (.020) .03 (.830) 1 -.25 (.090) -.14 (.930) -.21 (.150) 1

PENW=Practice environment of nursing work.

TOOLS
Similar articles