Display options
Cite
Stone L, Arneil M, Coventry L, et al. Benchmarking nurse outcomes in Australian Magnet® hospitals: cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs. 2019;18:62doi: 10.1186/s12912-019-0383-6.
Stone, L., Arneil, M., Coventry, L., Casey, V., Moss, S., Cavadino, A., Laing, B., & McCarthy, A. L. (2019). Benchmarking nurse outcomes in Australian Magnet® hospitals: cross-sectional survey. BMC nursing, 1862. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0383-6
Stone, L, et al. "Benchmarking nurse outcomes in Australian Magnet® hospitals: cross-sectional survey." BMC nursing vol. 18 (2019): 62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0383-6
Stone L, Arneil M, Coventry L, Casey V, Moss S, Cavadino A, Laing B, McCarthy AL. Benchmarking nurse outcomes in Australian Magnet® hospitals: cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs. 2019 Dec 03;18:62. doi: 10.1186/s12912-019-0383-6. eCollection 2019. PMID: 31827388; PMCID: PMC6892144.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Nurs. 2019 Dec 03;18:62. doi: 10.1186/s12912-019-0383-6. eCollection 2019.

Benchmarking nurse outcomes in Australian Magnet® hospitals: cross-sectional survey.

BMC nursing

L Stone, M Arneil, L Coventry, V Casey, S Moss, A Cavadino, B Laing, A L McCarthy

Affiliations

  1. 1Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland Australia.
  2. 2University of Queenland, Brisbane, Queensland Australia.
  3. 3Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia.
  4. 4Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia.
  5. 5University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland Australia.
  6. 6University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  7. 7Mater Health Services, South Brisbane, Queensland Australia.

PMID: 31827388 PMCID: PMC6892144 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-019-0383-6

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Positive reports of nursing-related outcomes such as quality nursing care, nursing engagement with work and good practice environment are crucial in attaining and maintaining Magnet® designation. The majority of Magnet®-designated organisations (

METHODS: The aims are to benchmark educational preparation, occupational burnout, job satisfaction, intention to leave and working environment of nurses in Australian Magnet®-designated facilities and to determine the reliability of the Practice Environment Scale-Australia.The design is a cross-sectional multisite survey set in all three Australian Magnet®-designated organisations.The demographics included age, gender, level of education, years in practice, level of seniority and position title. Two items measured job satisfaction and intent to stay in current employment. The Maslach Burnout Inventory explored the three domains of nursing engagement: depersonalisation, personal achievement and emotional exhaustion. The Australian version of the Practice Environment Scale interrogated participants' perceptions of their work environments.

RESULTS: 2004 nurses participated (response rate 45.9%). Respondents' mean age was 39.2 years (range 20-72). They were predominantly female and had worked in their current facility for more than 5 years. Eighty five percent had a minimum of a Bachelor's degree. Eighty-six percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their current position. Eighty eight percent had no intention of leaving their current employer within the next 12 months. Participants rated their hospitals highly in all domains of the practice environment. Respondents reported less burnout in the personal accomplishment and depersonalisation domains than in the emotional exhaustion domain, in which they reported average levels of burnout. The internal consistency of the Practice Environment Scale-Australia was confirmed in this sample (Cronbach α's 0.87-0.9 for subscales and 0.89 for composite score).

CONCLUSION: In this paper, we present nursing outcome data from all Australian Magnet® hospitals for the first time. This provides a benchmark that facilitates comparison with nursing outcomes published by Australian non-Magnet® hospitals and with international Magnet® organisations.

© The Author(s). 2019.

Keywords: Burnout; Job satisfaction; Magnet®; Nursing outcomes; Practice environment

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Dec;50(12):1667-77 - PubMed
  2. Nurs Open. 2018 May 18;5(3):362-369 - PubMed
  3. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2017 Sep;49(5):537-547 - PubMed
  4. J Clin Nurs. 2008 Dec;17(24):3324-9 - PubMed
  5. World Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;15(2):103-11 - PubMed
  6. Int J Nurs Pract. 2010 Aug;16(4):352-8 - PubMed
  7. J Nurs Adm. 2012 Oct;42(10 Suppl):S44-9 - PubMed
  8. Collegian. 2013;20(3):161-9 - PubMed
  9. Med Care. 2015 Jun;53(6):550-7 - PubMed
  10. Int J Nurs Pract. 2010 Dec;16(6):616-23 - PubMed
  11. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Sep;74:76-84 - PubMed
  12. Med Care. 2011 Dec;49(12):1047-53 - PubMed
  13. J Nurs Adm. 2014 Jan;44(1):10-6 - PubMed
  14. J Adv Nurs. 2018 Apr;74(4):864-875 - PubMed
  15. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Feb;50(2):281-91 - PubMed
  16. Res Nurs Health. 2009 Apr;32(2):217-28 - PubMed
  17. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2011 Dec;43(4):426-32 - PubMed

Publication Types