Evaluation of a Career Ladder Program for Nurses in a Hospital

Kwang-Ok Park; Sung Hee Park; Yeon-Hee Kim; Jeong-Hee Choi

doi:10.16952/pns.2014.11.2.123

Journal List > Perspect Nurs Sci > v.11(2) > 1060388

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Park, Kim, and Choi: Evaluation of a Career Ladder Program for Nurses in a Hospital

Original Article

Perspectives in Nursing Science 2014;11(2):123-131.

Published online: 21 October 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16952/pns.2014.11.2.123

Evaluation of a Career Ladder Program for Nurses in a Hospital

Kwang-Ok Park¹, Sung Hee Park², Yeon-Hee Kim³, Jeong-Hee Choi⁴

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Suncheon National University, Suncheon, Korea

²Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Kyungmin College, Uijeongbu, Korea

³Chief Nurse Officer, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

⁴Unit Manager, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Park, Sung Hee Department of Nursing, Kyungmin College, 545 Seobu-ro, Uijeongbu 480-820, Korea. Tel: +82-31-828-7462, Fax: +82-31-828-7947, E-mail: angelshee@hanmail.net

Received 5 August 201417 September 2014 Accepted 18 September 2014

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

The purposes of this study were to assess the efficacy and usefulness of the career ladder program in a hospital and to evaluate nurses’ satisfaction with the program.

Methods

The study was conducted using a survey consisting of 14 questions on the appropriateness, necessity and usefulness of the career ladder program. The data were gathered from 403 nurses in a hospital. We assessed differences in responses according to the participants’ workplace, age, educational background, marital status, experience (total years and years at current working place). We analyzed the data using SPSS/WIN 12.0.

Results

Nurses acknowledged that the career ladder program is necessary and profitable within the nursing field, but they worried about the appropriateness of the nurse's role at each career level and rationality of the portfolio. The study also identified nurses’ characteristics that were significant factors in explaining nurses’ satisfaction with the career ladder program. Finally, we identified complaints and improvements for the program.

Conclusion

We assessed differences in attitude towards the career ladder program according to nurses' characteristics.

Keywords: Career ladder, Program evaluation, Nurses

REFERENCES

1. Buchan J. Evaluating the benefits of a clinical ladder for nursing staff: An International review. Int J Nurs Stud. 1999; 36(2):137–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(99)00005-X.

2. Zimmer M. Rationale for a ladder for clinical advancement. J Nurs Adm. 1972; 2(6):18–24.

3. Drenkard K, Swartwout E. Effectiveness of a Clinical Ladder Program. J Nurs Adm. 2005; 35(11):502–6.

4. Fusilero J, Lini L, Prohaska P, Szweda C, Carney K, Mion LC. The career advancement for registered nurses excellence program. J Nurs Adm. 2008; 38(12):526–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193945910378853.

5. Nelson JM, Sassaman B, Phillips A. Career ladder program for registered nurses in ambulatory care. Nurs Econ. 2008; 26(6):393–8.

6. Wurmser T. Recognizing the clinical nurse: the meridian health clinical advancement and recognition of excellence program. Teaching Learning Nurs. 2006; 1:22-6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2006.02.003.

7. Schultz AW. Evaluation of a clinical advancement system. J Nurs Adm. 1993; 23(2):13–9.

8. Steaban R, Fudge M, Leutgens W, Wells N. The Vanderbilt professional nursing practice program, part 3. J Nurs Adm. 2003; 33(11):568–77.

9. Kim MR. Influential factors on turnover intention of nurses; the affect of nurse's organizational commitment and career commitment to turnover intention. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2007; 13(3):335–44.

10. Kim MS. The effects of job characteristics, career commitment and job fitness on job attitude of clinical nurses. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2001; 7(3):387–401.

11. Chang KS. Study on establishment of clinical career development model of nurses. Seoul: Yonsei University;2000.

12. Jung SW. A survey on the recognition of RNs about the adoption of the clinical ladder system. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan University;2004.

13. Park SH, Park KO, Park SA. A development of career ladder program for nurse in a hospital. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2006; 12(4):624–32.

14. Park KO, Yi MS. Nurses' experience of career ladder programs in a general hospital. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2011; 41(5):581–92.

15. Benner P. From novice to expert: excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. California: Addison-Wesley;1984.

16. Kwon IG, Sung YH, Park KO, Yu OS, Kim MA. A study on the clinical ladder system model for hospital nurses. Clin Nurs Res. 2007; 13(1):7–23.

17. Park KO, Lee YY. Career ladder system perceived by nurses. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2010; 16(3):314–25.

18. Nelson JM, Cook PF. Evaluation of a career ladder program in an ambulatory care environment. Nurs Econ. 2008; 26(6):353–60.

19. Sheperd JC. Findings of a training needs analysis for qualified nurse practitioners. J Adv Nurs. 1995; 22:66–71.

20. Ryan J. Continuous professional development along the continuum of lifelong learning. Nurse Education Today. 2003; 23(7):498–508.

21. Aryee S, Tan K. Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment. J Vocational Behavior. 1992; 40:288–305.

22. Lee YS, Gang MH, Jung MS. Impact of professional autonomy and nursing work environment on clinical decision making of clinical nurses. Korean J Occup Health Nurs. 2013; 22(4):285–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.5807/kjohn.2013.22.4.285.

23. Kang SY. The effect of self-efficacy and social support on nurses burnout in Korea. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;2006.

24. Leigh J, Douglas M. The benefits of a fast-track, staff nurse development programme. Nurs Times. 2003; 99(6):34–6.

Table 1.

General Characteristics of the Participants (N=403)

Characteristics	Categories	n(%)
Age (year)	25~29	223 (55.3)
	30~34	149 (37.0)
	35~39	19 (4.7)
	≥40	12 (3.0)
Length of employment (year)	0~2	66 (16.4)
	3~5	175 (43.4)
	6~8	57 (14.1)
	9~11	84 (20.8)
	12~14	16 (4.0)
	≥15	5 (1.2)
Length of employment in current working place (year)	0~1	30 (7.4)
	2~3	154 (38.2)
	4~5	105 (26.1)
	6~7	37 (9.2)
	8~9	39 (9.7)
	10~11	27 (6.7)
	12~13	7 (1.7)
	14~15	4 (1.0)
Education	Diploma	43 (10.7)
	Bachelor	322 (79.9)
	Studying graduate	21 (5.2)
	Master	13 (3.2)
	No response	4 (1.0)
Marital status	Married	149 (37.0)
	Not married	252 (62.5)
	No response	2 (0.5)
Working place	General ward	102 (25.3)
	Operation room	147 (36.5)
	ICU	152 (37.7)
	Others	2 (0.5)

Table 2.

Evaluation Score of Career Ladder Program by Each Item (N=403)

Variables	Items	M±SD
Appropriateness of program	․ ERP is very user-friendly with and reasonable for me in filling up application format	3.41±0.48
	․ ERP is familiar with and reasonable for me in self evaluation of performance	3.53±0.51
	․ It is suitable that nursing role has 4 domains of patient care, staff development,	3.60±0.49
	leadership, research and quality improvement
	․ 45 items of performance evaluation are appropriate to evaluate nursing profession	3.48±0.50
	․ Each ladder is helpful to identify and classify levels of performance	3.59±0.49
	․ Role expectation of at each level is easy to understand	3.30±0.39
Necessity of program	․ CLS is a goal oriented system set up to enhance nursing profession	3.63±0.48
	․ CLS may help to improve quality of practice	3.61±0.49
	․ CLS is necessary for us to upgrade productivity of hospital and nursing department	3.50±0.56
	․ I want to plan my professional career advancement through this pilot process of CBS	3.58±0.49
Recognition	․ I fully understand CLS.	3.59±0.49
Usefulness	․ I can realize my level of practice through performance evaluation my level of practice	3.58±0.49
	․ Continuing education track leads me to plan my goal setting for learning and study	4.29±0.45
	․ Contents of learning at each level are made up of valid & necessary education	4.61±0.46
Total		3.66±0.48

ERP=Enterprise resource planning; CLS=Career ladder system.

Table 3.

Perceptions of Clinical Career Program by General Characteristics (N=403)

Characteristics	Categories	M±SD	F	p	Scheffé
Age (year)	25~29	3.52±0.44	1.928	.150	-
	30~34	3.49±0.47
	35~39	3.61±0.56
	≥40	3.39±0.55
Length of employment (year)	0~2	3.51±0.38	1.614	.142
	3~5	3.49±0.49			-
	6~8	3.62±0.43
	9~11	3.59±0.22
	12~14	3.51±0.48
	≥15	3.52±0.43
	No response	2.57±0.61
Length of employment in current working place (year)	0~1	3.58±0.41	1.493	.158	-
	2~3	3.45±0.42
	4~5	3.54±0.41
	6~7	3.71±0.32
	8~9	3.57±0.30
	10~11	3.52±0.41
	12~13	3.49±0.51
	14~15	3.45±0.58
	No response	2.57±0.61
Education	Diploma	3.47±0.49	1.632	.165	-
	Bachelor	3.05±0.66
	Studying	3.51±0.46
	graduate school	3.49±0.38
	Master	3.66±0.31
	No response
Marital status	Not married^a	3.48±0.46	16,255.000	.037	a＜b
Marital status	Married^b	3.56±0.45

Table 4.

Comments about Career Ladder Program

Contents	n(%)
Fully satisfied	134(33.3)
More objectivity and fairness	56(13.9)
More education and information about CLS	49(12.2)
Negativism about CLS	47(11.7)
Multidimensional approach (ex. peer evaluation)	26(6.5)
Wanted reward	23(5.7)
Hard to understand	18(4.5)
Needed more education in each level	17(4.2)
Not comment	15(3.7)
Others	7(1.7)
Acceptable positively	6(1.5)
Negativism about each module	5(1.2)
Total	403(100.0)

CLS=Career ladder system.

TOOLS

Similar articles