MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407266321 · doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2025.01.003

Advocating for patient safety: Power dynamics in nurse advocacy practice in Australia—An integrative review

2025· article· en· W4407266321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan Ramsay, Peter Hartin, Kris McBain-Rigg, Melanie Birks

Bibliographic record

VenueCollegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing Australia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJames Cook University
KeywordsDynamics (music)Power (physics)Patient safetyNursingPractice nurseMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceFamily medicineHealth careLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Nurses play a vital role in advocating for patient safety, yet their ability to fulfil this role is influenced by the power dynamics within healthcare systems. Understanding the relationship between power and nurse advocacy in Australia is essential to fostering a supportive environment for effective advocacy. Aim This integrative literature review aims to identify and examine the relationship between power and the advocacy role of nurses in Australia. Methods The review followed an integrative literature review design, guided by the approach outlined by Toronto and Remington. A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases such as Medline, CINAHL, Emcare, Scopus, ProQuest Health & Medicine, and Informit. The search terms used were ‘nurse OR nursing OR nurses' AND ‘advocacy OR whistleblowing' AND ‘Australia.' A total of 2507 articles were retrieved, and 26 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 18 qualitative studies, one quantitative study, one mixed-method study, one review of existing literature, and four editorial commentaries. The search was completed in May 2023. Findings The findings suggest that enhancing nurses' advocacy for patient safety requires a multifaceted approach. This includes empowering nurses through professional development and leadership opportunities, fostering a culture of patient safety, and engaging in political action to advocate for policies that support advocacy efforts and patient safety. This approach aims to advance patient well-being and elevate the professional standing of nurses within the healthcare system. Discussion Power dynamics significantly shape nurse advocacy practices. Nurses with greater personal power are more likely to advocate confidently, while those with less power may be hesitant. Healthcare organisations can either support or hinder advocacy efforts, with unsupportive systems creating barriers and fostering a culture of silence. Whistleblowing, as a form of advocacy for patient safety, is also affected by organisational culture and power structures. Conclusion Power dynamics play a critical role in determining how effectively nurses can advocate for patient safety. Empowering nurses and addressing organisational barriers are crucial for promoting advocacy in healthcare. This review highlights the need for healthcare systems to cultivate environments that support and facilitate nurse advocacy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing AustraliaSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207