Nurse leaders’ experiences of upwards violence in the workplace: a qualitative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to synthesize the qualitative literature on the experience of upwards violence in nursing workplaces directed towards nurse leaders who have authority over those who direct the violence towards them. INTRODUCTION: Workplace violence has impacted nursing work life for decades. It has been studied mostly from a downwards and lateral perspective and less often from an upwards direction towards individuals in leadership positions. Little is known about the experiences of nurse leaders or the potential consequences of workplace violence, including what impact upwards violence has on leadership ability and sustainability. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered qualitative studies that included nurse leaders who experienced upwards violence in nursing workplaces from nurses they supervise. Nurse leaders were registered nurses or advanced practice nurses employed in a position where they supervised other nursing personnel (eg, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, nurse practitioners, student nurses). The positions held by nurse leaders included all roles (eg, nurse manager, clinical nurse specialist, nurse practitioner, nursing professor) where the position included supervising other nursing personnel. METHODS: The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies in English from 2000. The search was first conducted in January 2019 and rerun in June 2020. The databases searched included CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase. To ensure full coverage, databases not specific to the nursing profession, but with potential content on upwards violence, were also searched for examples of upwards violence against nurse leaders. These databases were ABI/INFORM, Sociological Abstracts, LexisNexis Academic, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search for unpublished studies included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, OpenGrey Repository, Health Business Elite, and Factiva. Papers meeting the inclusion criteria were appraised by two independent reviewers for methodological quality using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. Data extraction was conducted according to the standardized data extraction tool from JBI. The qualitative research findings were pooled using the JBI method of meta-aggregation. RESULTS: Six papers were included in the review yielding a total of 50 findings and nine categories. The categories were aggregated to form three synthesized findings: i) Physical, psychological, financial, and quality-of-work toll of upwards bullying: paying a high price; ii) Coping with violence alone; and iii) What happened to me? My take on the violence. The ConQual scores were low to moderate. CONCLUSION: The synthesized findings reveal that nurse leaders' experiences of upwards workplace violence is a troublesome problem that leads to a negative impact on physical and psychological health, and creates a cost in terms of time, money, and efficacy of the workplace.
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 | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".