Occupational Disappointment and Emergency Nurses: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Occupational disappointment is a novel concept in emergency nursing. It is a feeling of disheartenment with career choice. It results from prevalent, unaddressed verbal abuse in the emergency department directed towards nurses from patients and/or their visitors. Occupational disappointment is conceptually different from burnout and compassion fatigue. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to acknowledge this phenomenon and understand its implications while considering strategies to mitigate it. Method: A qualitative descriptive methodology was used in this study. Nurses were interviewed to explore the question: How do emergency department nurses experience occupational disappointment as a result of verbal abuse? Results: Three major themes with several subthemes were identified: (1) nurses’ experiences of occupational disappointment with sub-themes of powerlessness and normalizing; (2) nurses’ responses to occupational disappointment with sub-themes of changes in nursing practice, retention, and nurses’ mental health; (3) nurses’ concerns regarding occupational disappointment with sub-themes of nursing and organizational leadership. Discussion: Policies addressing verbal abuse would help guide nurses when managing this violence. Failure of nurse leaders to implement such measures contributes to nurses’ occupational disappointment, consequently affecting nurses’ practice, mental health, and retention. While these implications are not new, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this phenomenon. The magnitude of verbal abuse that emergency nurses currently face has increased exponentially; a renewed urgency for strategic action is necessary. Conclusion: Occupational disappointment is a direct result of verbal abuse and an indirect result of organizational failures to support nurses and empower them to mitigate this abuse.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".