Incivility in psychiatric nursing : a phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of incivility is a well-researched long-standing issue in nursing literature. Incivility and its associated human and financial costs are a significant issue in healthcare. Psychiatric nurses work in sites that have the highest incidents of violence and incivility in health systems. Registered Psychiatric Nurses (RPNs) are a separate and distinct profession in Western Canada. This study explored the RPN lived experience of incivility using a descriptive phenomenological approach. The research question was: what is the meaning given to the experience of incivility by RPNs? Data collection methods were semi-structured interviews and personal written narratives using an online survey. The research was conducted at three acute psychiatric units in the province of British Columbia, Canada. Eight RPNs provided descriptions of their experience of incivility working in acute psychiatric services. Five themes emerged from data analysis: managing incivility from patients is part of the job, RPNs experience incivility from health care professionals, relationships changed after the experience of incivility, ethical dilemmas resulted from the experience of incivility, and personal resilience is variable. Under the theme of ethical dilemmas, data were grouped into two dilemmas or subthemes: therapeutic rapport versus personal safety, and professional communication versus interpersonal issues. Under the theme of personal resilience, five aspects of resilience were grouped into subthemes: emotional support from a trusted colleague, life experience and education, professional boundaries, reflective practice, and self-care. Findings are discussed in light of current literature, significance, strengths and limitations, and implications for future research.\n\t\tKeywords: psychiatric nursing, registered psychiatric nurses, civility, incivility, bullying, verbal and physical aggression, emotional and physical violence, vertical horizontal, and lateral violence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 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".