Nurses’ Bullying Experiences: A Case study of a Caribbean Major Island Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study was aimed at determining the self-reported experiences of the nurses in the major Island hospital in The Commonwealth of The Bahamas with regard to workplace bullying and their assessment of the support they received following the experience. METHODS: A descriptive quantitative case study was undertaken using all the registered nurses in the Island Hospital. The study utilized a modified pre-validated instrument from the International Labour Office (ILO), International Council of Nurses (ICN), World Health Organization (WHO), and Public Services International (PSI). Analysis was done using the SPSS version 20. The result was presented as frequencies. RESULTS: Eighty-one (81) respondents completed and returned their copies of the questionnaire giving a response rate of 97.5%. Also, 85.2% of the respondents reported having moderate bullying experience while 14.8% reported having maximum bullying experience. As it relates to the self-reported support for bullying, 60.5% of the respondents indicated that they received little support following a bullying experience. Further, 39.5% reported that they received some support following a bullying experience. There was no significant relationship between the respondents’ demographics and their self-reported experience of bullying or support following a bullying experience (p≤ 0.05). RECOMMENDATION/DISCUSSION: Among others, we recommended that a more deliberate policy instrument be developed for dealing with cases of bullying and to monitor the use of this instrument, noting that the mental health of the nurses are also at risk. CONCLUSION: The study revealed that bullying was reportedly high while measures to support staff were reportedly low, a combination the investigators see as concerning in the Island Hospital.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".