Creating Respectful Workplaces for Nurses in Regional Acute Care Settings: Protocol for a Sequential Explanatory Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Negative workplace behaviour among nurses is an internationally recognised problem, despite the plethora of literature spanning several decades. The various forms of mistreatments and uncaring attitudes experienced by nurses include workplace aggression, incivility, bullying, harassment and horizontal violence. Negative behaviour has detrimental effects on the individual nurse, the organisation, the nursing profession and patients. Multi-level organisational interventions are warranted to influence the "civility norms" of the nursing profession. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the self-reported exposure to and experiences of negative workplace behaviours of nursing staff and their ways of coping in regional acute care hospitals in one Local Health District (LHD) in NSW before and after Respectful Workplace Workshops have been implemented within the organisation. METHODS: This study employs a mixed methods sequential explanatory design with an embedded experimental component, underpinned by Social World's Theory. This study will be carried out in four acute care regional hospitals from a Local Health District (LHD) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The nurse unit managers, registered nurses and new graduate nurses from the medical and surgical wards of all four hospitals will be invited to complete a pre-survey examining their experiences, perceptions and responses to negative workplace behaviour, and their ways of coping when exposed. Face-to-face educational workshops will then be implemented by the organisation at two of the four hospitals. The workshops are designed to increase awareness of negative workplace behaviour, the pathways to seek assistance and aims to create respectful workplaces. Commencing 3 months after completion of the workshop implementation, follow up surveys and interviews will then be undertaken at all four hospitals. RESULTS: The findings from this research will enhance understanding of negative workplace behaviour occurring within the nursing social world and assess the effectiveness of the LHD's Respectful Workplace Workshops upon the levels of negative workplace behaviour occurring. By integrating qualitative and quantitative findings it will allow for a dual perspective of the social world of nurses where negative and/or respectful workplace behaviours occur, and provide data grounded in individuals lived experiences, positioned in a macro context. CONCLUSIONS: It is expected that evidence from this study will inform nursing practice, and future policy development aimed at creating respectful workplaces. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Registration No. ACTRN12618002007213; 14 December 2018). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/18643.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.013 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".