Conflict resolution strategies of nurses in a selected government tertiary hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Conflict is inevitable and can be found in all settings. It can co-exist between and among health care professionals such as doctors and nurses and their patients. The roles of the nurses in each scenario and the kind of strategies they utilized also vary. This study aimed to determine the conflict resolution strategies of nurses in a selected government tertiary hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Methods: Utilizing a Descriptive Correlational Research Design, 78 nurses were asked to identify their conflict resolution strategies during their day to day interaction with the patients and doctors through a 20-item questionnaire. This study was conducted in a government tertiary hospital specializing in maternity and pediatric care with 310 beds in the East of Riyadh. Results: Findings yielded a high utilization of conflict resolution strategies by nurses with patients. Accommodating (61.5%; n = 48) was ranked number one as nurses used this strategy in dealing with patients. Secondly, collaborative (60.3%; n = 47), the third is both compromising and avoiding at (57.7%; n = 45); and the least in rank is competing (56.4%; n = 44). Nurses utilized the following conflict resolution strategies with doctors such as: (1) competing (43.6%; n = 34), (2) both compromising and avoiding (42.3%; n = 33), (3) collaborative (39.7%; n = 31), and (4) accommodating (38.5%; n = 3). It shows that the number 1 priority for conflict resolution strategies is “accommodating” for patients which was regarded the least for the doctors. On the other hand, the least strategy “competing” with patients is the number 1 strategy of nurses with doctors. There is a significant relationship between nurses’ use of conflict resolution strategies consistent at collaborative with patients and doctors and their age. Findings further reveal that the overall use of conflict resolution strategies is significantly related to both patients and doctors. There is a significant relationship between nurses’ use of conflict resolution strategies at compromising with doctors and their nursing qualification. There is a significant relationship between nurses’ use of conflict resolution strategies (collaborative) with patients and their current nursing experience. The overall use of compromising as a strategy is significantly related to doctors. There is a significant positive correlation between the nurses’ scores of conflict resolution strategies for both patients and doctors. On the one hand, there is no significant difference relation between nurses’ use of conflict resolution strategies with patients and doctors and their socio-demographic variables (age, years of nursing experience) except nursing qualification. There is a significant difference between nurses’ use of conflict resolution strategies (avoiding) with patients and doctors and their qualifications. Conclusions: Consequently, conflict is inevitable and is still growing in healthcare. We have determined the importance of identifying the conflict resolution strategies being utilized by nurses when they deal with their patients and doctors. Nurses can safely identify conflict and implement systems for its management. Nurses and doctors must establish positive collegial relationships. The active management of conflict is an important aspect towards a positive collegial relationship. Doctors and nurses can effectively manage conflict to produce positive outcomes for patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle