6 research outputs found

    Rebels verpleegkundig leiderschap

    No full text
    Verpleegkundig leiderschap is belangrijk om de kwaliteit van zorg te bewaken en te verbeteren, maar soms zitten de regels hierbij in de weg en daagt het de verpleegkundige uit tot rebels leiderschap. Deze studie onderzocht de theoretische concepten om inzicht te geven in het rebels leiderschap

    Beyond transformational leadership in nursing: A qualitative study on rebel nurse leadership‐as‐practice

    Get PDF
    Most nurse leadership studies have concentrated on a classical, heroic, and hierarchical view of leadership. However, critical leadership studies have argued the need for more insight into leadership in daily nursing practices. Nurses must align their professional standards and opinions on quality of care with those of other professionals, management, and patients. They want to achieve better outcomes for their patients but also feel disciplined and controlled. To deal with this, nurses challenge the status quo by showing rebel nurse leadership. In this paper, we describe 47 nurses’ experiences with rebel nurse leadership from a leadership-as-practice perspective. In eight focus groups, nurses from two hospitals and one long-term care organization shared their experiences of rebel nurse leadership practices. They illustrated the differences between “bad” and “good” rebels. Knowledge, work experience, and patient-driven motivation were considered necessary for “good” rebel leadership. The participants also explained that continuous social influencing is important while exploring and challenging the boundaries set by colleagues and management. Credibility, trust, autonomy, freedom, and preserving relationships determined whether rebel nurses acted visibly or invisibly. Ultimately, this study refines the concept of rebel nurse leadership, gives a better understanding of how this occurs in nursing practice, and give insights into the challenges faced when studying nursing leadership practices

    SYMptoms in chronic heart failure imPACT on burden of treatment (SYMPACT): a cross‐sectional survey

    No full text
    Abstract Aims This study aimed to describe patient‐reported symptoms and burden of treatment (BoT) experienced by patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). BoT describes the illness workload, individual capacity to perform that work, and resultant impact on the individual. Overwhelming BoT is related to poor quality of life and worse clinical outcomes. This research is the first to explore symptoms and BoT in people with CHF, in the UK. Methods and results This is a cross‐sectional questionnaire survey of CHF patients. Participants completed the Heart Failure Symptom Survey (HFSS; max score 10) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ; max scores: physical 40, emotional 25, and total 105), which measured symptoms. BoT was measured with the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self‐management (PETS; max score 100) questionnaires. Participant characteristics and questionnaire results were summarized using descriptive statistics. Relationships between symptoms and BoT, summarized by the workload and impact indices, were explored using Spearman's and Pearson's correlation coefficients together with scatter plots. The survey was completed by 333 participants, mean age of 71 (±13) years old. The majority (89%) were recruited from secondary care NHS trusts, and 25% were female. All types of heart failure were represented. Mean symptom scores were as follows: HFSS burden score: 2.4 (±2.1), and MLHFQ scores: physical score 20 (±12.4), emotional score 9.9 (±8.1), and total score 41.3 (±26.3). The highest mean PETS domain scores were exercise [51.3 (±24.7)], diet [40.3 (±22.7)], difficulty with healthcare services [39.9 (±21.3)], and physical and mental fatigue [36.0 (±25.7)]. Pairwise correlations were observed between HFSS scores and MLHFQ physical and emotional sub‐scores with PETS workload and impact indices. Positive correlations were weak to moderate (0.326–0.487) between workload index and symptoms, and moderate to strong between impact index and symptoms (0.553–0.725). The P value was 0.006, adjusted by Bonferroni's correction. Conclusions Symptoms are associated with BoT in CHF patients. Although symptom burden was low, CHF patients reported higher levels of burden around self‐care activities of exercise, diet, healthcare interaction, as well as physical and mental fatigue due to engagement with self‐care regimens. Observed higher levels of burden were in key self‐care areas for CHF and suggest areas where service delivery and support of CHF patients may be improved to reduce BoT. Clinicians could individualize their consultations by focusing on troublesome symptoms, as well as alleviating illness workload, which may better enable patients to live well with CHF
    corecore