Search

Background: Professional caregiving relationships are central to quality healthcare but are not always developed to a consistently high standard in clinical practice. Existing literature on what constitutes high‐quality relationships and how they should be developed is plagued by dyadic conceptualisations; discipline, context and condition‐specific research; and the absence of healthcare recipient and informal carer voices. This study aimed to address these issues by exploring how healthcare recipients and carers conceptualise good professional caregiving relationships regardless of discipline, care setting and clinical condition. Design: A qualitative story completion approach was used. Participants completed a story in response to a hypothetical stem that described a healthcare recipient (and, in some instances, carer) developing a good relationship with a new healthcare provider. Stories were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Participants: Participants were 35 healthcare recipients and 37 carers (n = 72 total). Results: Participants' stories were shaped by an overarching discourse that seeking help from new providers can elicit a range of unwanted emotions for both recipients and carers (e.g., anxiety, fear, dread). These unwanted emotions were experienced in relation to recipients' presenting health problems as well as their anticipated interactions with providers. Specifically, recipient and carer characters were fearful that providers would dismiss their concerns and judge them for deciding to seek help. Good relationships were seen to develop when healthcare providers worked to relieve or minimise these unwanted emotions, ensuring healthcare recipients and carers felt comfortable and at ease with the provider and the encounter. Participants positioned healthcare providers as primarily responsible for relieving recipients' and carers' unwanted emotions, which was achieved via four approaches: (1) easing into the encounter, (2) demonstrating interest in and understanding of recipients' presenting problems, (3) validating recipients' presenting problems and (4) enabling and respecting recipient choice. Participants' stories also routinely oriented to temporality, positioning relationships within recipients' and carers' wider care networks and biographical and temporal contexts. Conclusion: The findings expand our understanding of professional caregiving relationships beyond dyadic, static conceptualisations. Specifically, the findings suggest that high‐quality relationships might be achieved via a set of core healthcare provider behaviours that can be employed across disciplinary, context and condition‐specific boundaries. In turn, this provides a basis to support interprofessional education and multidisciplinary healthcare delivery, enabling different healthcare disciplines, specialties, and teams to work from the same understanding of what is required to develop high‐quality relationships. Patient or Public Contribution: The findings are based on stories from 72 healthcare recipient and carer participants, providing rich insight into their conceptualisations of high‐quality professional caregiving relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. The aim of this article is to report the process and outcomes of codesigning a nursing leadership program for fundamental care. The leadership program is designed to empower nursing leaders, across research, education, clinical practice, and policy, to challenge and change how fundamental care is valued, prioritised, and actioned within health and care systems. Background. Deficits in fundamental care represent an intractable problem adversely impacting care recipients, care providers, and health and care systems globally. These deficits stem from the minimal value placed on fundamental care and its subsequent invisibility across research, education, clinical practice, and policy. Sustainable systems change requires effective nursing leadership; however, existing nursing leadership programs tend to address only one area of health and care systems, typically clinical practice, and do not focus specifically on fundamental care. Methods. The Fundamentals of Care Leadership Program was codesigned with current and emerging nursing leaders using a participatory action research approach. The collaborative codesign process involved two stages: (1) idea generation and preliminary program development via Nominal Group Technique (n = 60 participants from 11 countries) and (2) refinement and trialling of program content and process via a three-day workshop (n = 19 participants from 9 countries). Results. Participants prioritised a program that provided clear understanding of the concept of fundamental care, enabled the development of influencing and negotiating skills to advocate for this care, and offered resources on knowledge translation, implementation, and measurement strategies. Participants also wanted allotted time to design research and quality improvement projects that would allow them to transfer the skills learned to the real-world issues occurring within their respective organisations. Conclusions. The codesign process, embedded within a participatory action approach, enabled the development of a Fundamentals of Care Leadership Program that is shaped by, and meets the needs of, current and emerging nursing leaders. The leadership program will enable nursing leaders to challenge value systems on fundamental care and to champion this care across research, education, clinical practice, and policy, working towards enhanced fundamental care outcomes and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate the strategies used by nurse leaders to facilitate fundamental care delivery in their clinical area. Design: An interpretative qualitative design study reported in line with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). Methods: Twenty‐four self‐identified nurse leaders from across Australia were interviewed between November 2020 and April 2021 to discuss their strategies for facilitating fundamental care. Data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Nurse leaders' experience of facilitating fundamental care produced two major themes, delivery of fundamental care (comprising three sub‐themes: valuing fundamental care, understanding and developing staff capacity and supportive relationships), and monitoring of fundamental care (including three sub‐themes: visibility in the clinical area, embedding fundamental care in the practice setting and specific direct actions). Conclusion: Facilitating fundamental care delivery is complex. This study highlighted the importance of nurse leaders' individual characteristics, and nurse leaders' ability to establish and maintain relationships alongside the role of informal and formal monitoring of fundamental care delivery. Impact Findings from this study build on existing research into fundamental care and contribute to our understanding of the role, characteristics and actions of nurse leaders to facilitate fundamental care. The results demonstrate the complexity and intricacy of nursing leadership to facilitate fundamental care, and that a dynamic 'thinking and linking' approach is required. The results show individualized practice which may create challenges for new nurse leaders seeking guidance, and for monitoring nurse leader activity. Further research is advocated to explore insights and tools to optimize nurse leaders' endeavours in facilitating fundamental care. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was designed using insights generated from patient and public involvement in nursing leadership and fundamental care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The commitment of nurses to their profession and workplace is closely linked to the delivery of high-quality patient care. Existing literature highlights the positive impact of commitment on care quality and patient outcomes. Conversely, a lack of commitment can lead to nurse burnout and disengagement. However, it remains unclear whether and how cultural beliefs and practices influence newly graduated nurses' commitment to the nursing profession and their workplace. Aim: To explore the cultural beliefs and practices influencing newly graduated nurses' commitment to the profession and commitment to their workplace during their first year of employment. Design: A focused ethnographic study. Methods: Data consisted of field notes from 94 h of participant observations and 10 semi-structured interviews with newly graduated nurses working in acute care settings in Denmark. Data were analysed using ethnographic content analysis. Data were collected between March and June 2022. Results: The findings reveal a major theme, termed 'A State of Transience among Newly Graduated Nurses', consisting of two themes: 'Newly Graduated Nurses' Pursuit of Professional Development and Supportive Work Environments' and 'A Lack of Formal Agreements or Conditions to Meet Expectations for Professional Development.' Conclusion: Hospitals and nurse managers need to support newly graduated nurses in their first employment after registration by providing a range of clinical experiences through job rotation opportunities within the same organization, deliver on promises for onboarding support and foster a culture of trust. These strategies will help maintain the motivation, commitment and ability of newly graduated nurses to deliver high-quality patient care, thereby reducing the likelihood of turnover. Relevance for Clinical Practice: A trusting and supportive work environment is fostered by providing diverse clinical experiences and consistent support for newly graduated nurses. To address potential high turnover associated with job rotation, hospitals need to rethink how retention is defined and measured, moving beyond hospital unit-level models and measures. Reporting Method: This study reports to the SRQR guidelines. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]