Factors Associated with the Choices of Local Hospitals among New Graduate Nurses

Eun-Young Kim; Hun Ha Cho

doi:10.11111/jkana.2018.24.3.202

Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs Adm > v.24(3) > 1098656

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Cho: Factors Associated with the Choices of Local Hospitals among New Graduate Nurses

Original Article

J Korean Acad Nurs Adm 2018;24(3):202-210.

Published online: 17 January 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2018.24.3.202

Factors Associated with the Choices of Local Hospitals among New Graduate Nurses

Eun-Young Kim¹, Hun Ha Cho^2,

¹Department of Nursing, Dong-A University

²College of Nursing, Kosin University

Corresponding author: Cho, Hun Ha, College of Nursing, Kosin University, 262 Gamcheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49104, Korea. Tel: +82-51-990-2212, Fax: +82-51-990-3970, E-mail: hhuna@kosin.ac.kr

Received 28 January 2018 Revised 8 March 2018 Accepted 5 April 2018

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 aim of this study was to identify factors associated with new graduate nurses' choices of local hospitals.

Methods:

Participants were 526 new graduate nurses from one of five universities located in Busan, Ulsan or Gyeongnam. The new graduates completed a self-report questionnaire survey during February and March, 2016. The questionnaire included questions about choices of local hospitals, satisfaction with nursing major, nursing professionalism and anticipated nursing practice environment. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the new graduate nurses' choices of local hospitals.

Results:

Of the participants, 86.3% had their first jobs in their nursing school region (local hospitals). The choice of local hospitals among new graduate nurses was related to region of origin, type of nursing school, grade point average, and anticipated nursing practice environment.

Conclusion:

Local hospitals need to enhance the nurse practice environment and provide institutional benefits to new graduate nurses who choose local hospitals. For quality nursing care, reducing the geographical gap and improving policy is necessary.

Keywords: Career choice, Hospitals, Nurses

REFERENCES

1. Lee TW, Kang KH, Ko YK, Cho SH, Kim EY. Issues and challenges of nurse workforce policy: a critical review and implication. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 2014; 20(1):106–116. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2014.20.1.106.

2. Groen JA. The effect of college location on migration of college educated labor. Journal of Econometrics. 2004; 121(1-2):125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2003.10.002.

3. Parkhouse J, Lambert TW. Home, training, and work: mobility of British doctors. Medical Education. 1997; 31(6):399–407. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1997.00681.x.

4. Robinson S, Murrells T, Griffiths P. Investigating the dynamics of nurse migration in early career: a longitudinal questionnaire survey of variation in regional retention of diploma qualifiers in England. The International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2008; 45(7):1064–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.07.001.

5. Kovner CT, Corcoran SP, Brewer CS. The relative geographic immobility of new registered nurses calls for new strategies to augment that workforce. Health Affair. 2011; 30(12):2293–2300. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0108.

6. Cho SH, Lee JY, Mark BA, Lee HY. Geographical imbalances: Migration patterns of new graduate nurses and factors related to working in non-metropolitan hospitals. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2012; 42:1019–1026. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2012.42.7.1019.

7. Yoon HJ, Cho SH. Geographic mobility and related factors among newly graduated nurses. Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2017; 23(3):353–362. Korean.https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2017.23.3.353.

8. Buchan J, O'May F, Dussault G. Nursing workforce policy and the economic crisis: A global overview. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2013; 45:298–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12028.

9. Kim SM, Roh YJ, Kim JI, Park JS. A study on creating healthcare jobs and improving the quality of work. Family Harmony Strategic Institute;Seoul: 2010. p. 70.

10. Lee JY, Cho SH. Trends in salaries for registered nurses compared with elementary school teachers and salary differences by workplace size and geographic location. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2013; 19:108–117. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2013.19.1.108.

11. Kim KH, Ha HS. A study of department satisfaction factors of undergraduate students. Korean Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy. 2000; 1(1):7–20.

12. Han SJ. The influence of academic self-efficacy and major satisfaction on career attitude maturity in nursing students. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2013; 25(5):559–566.

13. Yeun EJ, Kwon YM, Ahn OH. Development of a nursing professional value scale. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2005; 35(6):1091–1100. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2005.35.6.1091.

14. Bang KS, Jun MH, Kim HS, Son HM, Kang JH, Yu SJ, et al. Nursing students' awareness of nursing and future career. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2009; 15(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.5977/JKASNE.2009.15.1.022.

15. Chu SK, Jun EM. Process of the nursing students decision-making for their course and job. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 1998; 4(2):280–295.

16. Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, Lake ET, Cheney T. Effects of hospital care environment on patient mortality and nurse outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2008; 38:223–229. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNA.0000312773.42352.d7.

17. Braskamp LA, Wise SL, Hengstler DD. Student satisfaction as a measure of departmental quality. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1979; 71(4):494–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.4.494.

18. Han SS, Kim MH, Yun EK. Factors affecting nursing professionalism. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2008; 14(1):73–79. https://doi.org/10.5977/JKASNE.2008.14.1.073.

19. Lake ET. Development of the practice environment scale of the nursing work index. Research in Nursing & Health. 2002; 25(3):176–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.10032.

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 Nursing. 2011; 14(3):325–332.

21. Lee BH. Legal issues and improvement of act on fostering of regional human resources. Kyungpook National University Law Journal. 2015; 52:1–22.

22. Cho SH, Lee JY, Mark BA, Yun SC. Turnover of new graduate nurses in their first job using survival analysis. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2012; 44(1):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2011.01428.x.

23. Kwon JO, Kim EY. Impact of unit-level nurse practice environment on nurse turnover intention in the small and medium sized hospitals. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 2012; 18(4):414–423. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2012.18.4.414.

24. Park SK, Cho KM. Clinical career preferences and associated factors of nursing students in Korea. The Korean Journal of Health Economics & Policy. 2016; 22(1):107–122.

25. Siyam A, Dal Poz MR. Migration of health workers: the WHO code of practice and the global economic crisis. Geneva: World Health Organization;2014.

Table 1.

General Characteristics of the Participants, Satisfaction with Major, Professional Nursing Values, and Anticipated Nursing Practice Environment (N=526)

Variables	Categories	n (%)	M±SD
Age (year)			22.85±2.07
Gender	Male	49 (9.3)
	Female	477 (90.7)
Living arrangement	With parents	329 (62.5)
	Others	197 (37.5)
Family economic status	Middle and high	459 (87.6)
	Low	65 (12.4)
Region of origin	Busan/Ulsan/Gyungnam	507 (96.4)
	Seoul/Incheon/Gyunggi	7 (1.3)
	Others	12 (2.3)
Nursing school	University	303 (57.6)
	College	223 (42.4)
Grade point average	≥3.5	208 (39.8)
	＜3.5	315 (60.2)
Motivation on choice of nursing	Thinking of aptitude	177 (33.8)
	Corresponded to SAT scores	44 (8.4)
	Employment guarantee	173 (33.0)
	Recommendation of family or others	111 (21.2)
	Others	19 (3.6)
Location of hospital	Busan/Ulsan/Gyungnam	454 (86.3)
	Seoul/Incheon/Gyunggi	62 (11.8)
	Others	10 (1.9)
Satisfaction with major			4.04±0.49
Nursing professionalism			3.49±0.47
Anticipated nursing practice environment			2.98±0.43

Table 2.

Choice of Local Hospitals according to General Characteristics of Participants (N=526)

Variables	Categories	Regional hospital		x² or t	p
		Yes (n=454)	No (n=72)
		n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD
Age (year)		22.84±2.09	22.92±1.97	-0.29	.768
Gender	Male	44 (89.8)	5 (10.2)	0.55	.456
	Female	410 (86.0)	67 (14.0)
Living arrangement	With parents	292 (88.8)	37 (11.2)	4.43	.035
	Others	162 (82.2)	35 (17.8)
Regions of origin	Busan/Ulsan/Gyungnam	444 (87.7)	62 (12.3)	25.23	＜.001
	Others	9 (47.4)	10 (52.6)
Family economic status	Middle and high	394 (85.8)	65 (14.2)	1.18	.336
	Low	59 (90.8)	6 (9.2)
Nursing school	University	249 (82.2)	54 (17.8)	10.33	＜.001
	College	205 (91.9)	18 (8.1)
Grade point average	≥3.5	157 (75.5)	51 (24.5)	33.63	＜.001
	＜3.5	294 (93.3)	21 (6.7)
Motivation to choose nursing	Thinking of aptitude	155 (87.6)	22 (12.4)	0.38	.534
	Others	297 (85.6)	50 (14.4)
Satisfaction with major		4.06±0.48	3.96±0.51	1.51	.130
Nursing professionalism		3.78±0.58	3.70±0.43	1.46	.145
Anticipated nursing practice environment		2.96±0.43	3.11±0.42	-2.62	.009

Table 3.

Factors Influencing Choice of Local Hospitals among Nursing Students (N=526)

Variables	Categories	_β	SE	Odds Ratio	95% CI	p
Living arrangement	With parents	0.20	0.29	1.21	0.68~2.48	.504
	Others			1
Regions of origin	Busan/Ulsan/Gyungnam	1.84	0.58	6.28	1.99~19.76	.002
	Others			1
Nursing school	College	1.07	0.34	2.92	1.49~5.71	.002
	University			1
Grade point average	＜3.5	1.51	0.30	4.51	2.51~8.10	＜.001
	≥3.5			1
Anticipated nursing practice environment		-1.35	0.35	0.26	0.13~0.52	＜.001

TOOLS

Similar articles