Conectar
To refine the Rushton Moral Resilience Scale (RMRS) by creating a more concise scale, improving the reliability, particularly of the personal integrity subscale and providing further evidence of validity.
Healthcare workers are exposed to moral adversity in practice. When unable to preserve/restore their integrity, moral suffering ensues. Moral resilience is a resource that may mitigate negative consequences. To better understand mechanisms for doing so, a valid and reliable measurement tool is necessary.
Cross-sectional survey.
Participants (N = 1297) had completed ≥1 items on the RMRS as part of the baseline survey of a larger longitudinal study. Item analysis, confirmatory factor analyses, reliability analyses (Cronbach's alpha), and correlations were used to establish reliability and validity of the revised RMRS.
Item and confirmatory factor analysis were used to refine the RMRS from 21 to 16 items. The four-factor structure (responses to moral adversity, personal integrity, relational integrity and moral efficacy) demonstrated adequate fit in follow-up confirmatory analyses in the initial and hold-out sub-samples. All subscales and the total scale had adequate reliabilities (α ≥ 0.70). A higher-order factor analysis supports the computation of either subscale scores or a total scale score. Correlations of scores with stress, anxiety, depression and moral distress provide evidence of the scale's validity. Reliability of the personal integrity subscale improved.
The RMRS-16 demonstrates adequate reliability and validity, particularly the personal integrity subscale. Moral resilience is an important lever for reducing consequences when confronted with ethical challenges in practice. Improved reliability of the four subscales and having a shorter overall scale allow for targeted application and will facilitate further research and intervention development.
Data came from a larger study of Canadian healthcare workers from multiple healthcare organizations who completed a survey about their experiences during COVID-19.
Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) are a global high-stakes patient safety issue. Key stakeholder perspectives regarding their role and experiences with pressure injuries is critical as part of the solution to minimizing HAPI occurrence and attain sustainability.
A qualitative, descriptive approach provided multiple perspectives of key stakeholders to support the complexity of HAPI care. The qualitative data are a part of a mixed method convergent research study examining pressure injury prevention and management practices.
Nursing system theory, mixed method convergent design, and participatory action research methodologies were chosen to address both the gap analysis development and results, achieve collaborative comprehensiveness, and enable key stakeholder involvement throughout this HAPI prevention and management initiative. Participants were recruited and enrolled from a large Level I trauma hospital and the key stakeholders. Demographic information were collected prior to the individual interview. Focused interviews were conducted virtually using zoom technology. Qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo software and thematic analysis was confirmed across the co-investigators for congruence and applicability to the research questions.
Qualitative interviews with 26 key stakeholders provided data to support and integrate a link with gap analysis results on the complex health issue of HAPIs. Specific barrier and recommendation themes identified interventions that could be prioritized. The 52 barrier and 52 recommendation themes/sub-theme(s) respectively were organized by Donabedian (structure, process, and outcome) with structure elements the majority. The top three structure barrier themes involved equipment and standards for use, staff prevention education, and specialized health professionals. The top three structure recommendation themes involved specialized health professionals, equipment and standards for use, and an educational plan for those at risk or with HAPIs.
The article provides findings from the qualitative portion of a mixed method study related to HAPIs. The qualitative findings associated with the gap analysis quantitative results, achieved the goal of the participatory action research key stakeholders' input into HAPI care and can be replicated internationally.
The benefit of key stakeholder's involvement in solving a clinical problem is sustainability. A quantitative approach and integrating qualitative stakeholders' perspectives provide an in-depth solution that will advance nursing capacity toward health care delivery and HAPI nursing science and policy development on a global level.
FreshRSS 