1. Choose one of the articles posted and read thoroughly.
2. Identify the theoretical framework used in the article you chose.
3. Go the reference section of the article and Identify/select at least one primary source and one secondary source (articles) that also used the theoretical framework.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines
Order Paper Now4. Now, search the electronic database such as Gale-Infotract on LIRN, CINAHL, or ProQuest to identify the primary and secondary source articles you selected.
Post a brief review the abstracts of the primary source and secondary source in the article you chose.
The article is attached at the bottom read it and answer the questions in essay style. APA format
American Journal of Nursing Research, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 10-19
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajnr/1/1/2
DOI:10.12691/ajnr-1-1-2
Investing in Human Relations for Healthy Nursing
Practice Environment, Nurses’ Job Satisfaction and
Quality of Nursing Care
Nazlee Siddiqui *
School of Business, North South University, Bangladesh
*Corresponding author: nazlee@northsouth.edu
Received January 01, 2013; Revised February 01, 2013; Accepted February 25, 2013
Abstract Relationship between the three domains of nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care have been studied for a way forward to superior healthcare delivery. However, the literature
and management practices frequently viewed the relationship as one directional; which may have resulted to
restructuring in the nursing practice environment that are insensitive to nurses‟ need. This paper provides evidence
of reciprocal relationship between the three domains in the context of interactions between nurses at NSW health
organisations. Mixed methods of survey questionnaire and one-on-one semi-structured interview were used in this
research in sequential design, with 136 survey respondents and 21 interviewees. The research result identified
interactions between nurses as a vehicle through which the reciprocal relationship between the domains are kept in
motion. While healthy interactions between nurses that generate trust and gratitude were seen to positively impact
the domains, the opposite was noticed in case of unhealthy interactions. Therefore, management practices in nursing
administration should invest for healthy human relations to achieve enhancements across the three domains.
Keywords: interactions between nurses, nursing practice environment, job satisfaction, quality of nursing care
1. Introduction
Studies concerning with providing a better workplace
for nurses, have consistently looked at how nursing
practice environment affects critical nurse outcomes such
as job satisfaction and quality of care [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Some
of these studies [4,6] are based on the Structure-Process-
Outcome (SPO) paradigm [7] and provide empirical
evidence that nursing practice environment represents the
structure and process, that can lead to the outcomes of
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care. One of
the valuable insights from these literatures is that, changes
in the nursing practice environment could bring desirable
positive outcomes in nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care.
Nonetheless, the existing literature analyses the
relationship between the three domains of nursing practice
environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of
nursing care as one-directional, rather than considering the
possibility of “reciprocity” of directions that might exist.
The term “reciprocity” here is referring to the mutual
dependence of the three domains, that is, how each of
these domains are impacting each other and mutually
dependent on each other. For example, Reference [3]
reported that nurses in an unfavourable nursing practice
environment are 11 times more likely to deliver fair to
poor quality of care. However, there were no reporting of
how the delivery of fair to poor quality of care might also
impact on nurses‟ job satisfaction and work environment.
In fact, the author of this paper conducted a literature
search from 1999 until February 2010 and failed to arrive
at any paper that studied the three domains of nursing
practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care in reciprocal directions. It may be
mentioned, that the search was limited to articles written
in English, published in peer reviewed journals and
analysing nursing practice environment with a validated
instrument.
Similar to the literature, management practices in
healthcare organisations also seem skewed, towards a
concept of one-directional relationship between the three
domains. It seems that changes in the nursing practice
environment are drawn, without a comprehensive view of
how each of the domains can affect each other. A
symptom in this regard is nurses are reported to believe,
changes in health care system will worsen the timeliness,
effectiveness and efficiency aspects of patient care [8].
Despite constant restructuring in the health system,
substantial portion of nurses are still facing verbal abuse
(56%), hostility at workplace (24%) and physical injuries
(38%) (8: 324). Hence, there is a need to learn how to
achieve improvements across the three domains of nursing
practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care. A step towards that learning can be to
comprehend the reciprocity between the three domains,
especially for its human relations aspect.
The purpose of this paper is to draw insight for possible
reciprocal relationships between the three domains of
nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and
quality of nursing care. Although this insight is not an
American Journal of Nursing Research 11
innovation, given the background in the previous
paragraphs, it is believed that the insight is certainly not
well articulated and practiced in nursing management. The
research question that the paper addresses is:
“How are the domains of nursing practice environment,
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care
interrelated?”
The paper will approach the research question with
mixed methods, including a survey questionnaire and one-
on-one interviews. Data from the survey is expected
provide a quantitative picture of the possibility of a
reciprocal relationship between the domains. The
interviews will search for insights of human relations
aspect in answering the research question. That is, whether
the lived experiences of interaction between nurses (e.g.
nursing administrators, nurse managers, nurse clinicians,
new graduate registered nurses) in the workplace could
provide an insight behind the proposed interrelationship of
the domains. Such research can contribute to fill the
scarcity of reciprocal study between the domains in the
literature. It has the potential to generate interest for
investing behind human relations, as a gateway towards
healthy nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of care.
2. Conceptual Framework
The following section briefly describes the three
domains, along with the importance of studying the
interrelationship between the domains. Such information
is pivotal to the conceptual framework of this paper.
Sample scales of the three domains are provided in
Appendix 1.
2.1 Nursing Practice Environment
In this paper, the nursing practice environment is
referring to nurses‟ work context which is represented
through organisational characteristics such as staffing and
resource adequacy, nurse manager ability, nurse
participation in hospital affairs, nursing foundation for
quality of care, nurse-doctor relationship and cultural
values [9,10,11].
2.2 Nurses’ Job Satisfaction
The literature continue to find job satisfaction to be an
ambiguous and yet important domain in management
[12,13,14]. Reference [12] described that the domain can
be defined as reaction to job from different perspectives
such as emotional assessment, evaluation of attitude,
expectation gap and appraisal of belief system. In this
paper, job satisfaction is accepted as a contented
emotional state that results when one is achieving the
desired job values [15]. This study captured aspects of
nurses‟ job satisfaction by assessing job values such as
pride in the job, sense of fulfillment from committing to
patient care and satisfaction with working conditions
[16,17,18].
2.3 Quality of Nursing Care
In this study, the quality of nursing care domain is
perceived as the degree to which the nurses‟ initiatives
meet the individual need of patients [19,20]. An
examination of quality of nursing care might involve
assessment of the structures, processes and outcomes that
meets patient needs for technical care, as well as the
interpersonal relationship with nurses [20,21,22].
However, such a vast examination of nursing care is
beyond the scope of this paper. The author of this paper
attempted to capture aspects of quality of nursing care, by
assessing nurses‟ initiatives regarding technical care,
informational and emotional support to patients [22].
The importance of studying the association between the
above mentioned three domains, as shown in Figure 1,
was identified as early as in the 1980s, through „magnet
study‟. The American Academy of Nursing (AAN)
conducted this study in 1981, in response to hospitals
facing a severe crisis in sourcing nursing staff and
maintaining patient safety [2]. The AAN task force had
studied 41 reputable hospitals, that is, hospitals that
achieved low nurse turnover and high quality of nursing
care even in the crisis period in USA. The task force
revealed that reputable hospitals, which are commonly
known as „magnet hospitals‟, usually maintain certain
organisational characteristics (e.g. staff & resource
availability, nurse participation in hospital affairs) in the
work place to function at a superior level with job
satisfaction and quality care. As McClure, a member of
the 1981 task force, explained:
Simply stated, these (magnet hospitals) were good
places for all employees to work (not just nurses) and
these were good places for patients to receive care. The
goal of quality was not only stated in the mission of these
institutions but it was lived on a daily basis (23: 119).
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework: The Magnet Study
Currently „magnet hospitals‟ are designated by
American Nurses Credentialing Centre (ANCC), to label
hospitals with excellence in quality of care and innovative
nursing practice [24]. Research has consistently shown
that „magnet hospitals‟ score favourably against the non-
magnet ones, hospitals that do not have endorsement from
ANCC, in the domains of nursing practice environment,
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care
[25,26,27,28]. Whereas, the association between the three
domains are evidenced both in the magnet and non-
magnet hospitals [1,3,6,26]. Therefore study of the
relationships between three domains in Figure 1, can
inform efforts towards positive changes in the context of
both magnet and non-magnet hospitals.
3. Method
12 American Journal of Nursing Research
3.1 Design
The study employed mixed methods, including a survey
questionnaire and one-on-one interviews with a two-stage
sequential design. The survey questionnaire was
conducted first, as it could provide a snapshot of the
possibility of a reciprocal relationship between the
domains in objective term. The interviews, that happened
four months later than the survey, were necessary for
deeper insight of human relations aspect in the
interrelationship between the domains. Mixing of methods
in this study is expected to integrate quantitative and
qualitative views, resulting in a “superior explanation” (29:
115) of the relationship between the domains of nursing
practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care.
The survey measured the nursing practice environment,
nurses job satisfaction and quality of nursing care
according to the adapted instruments of practice
environment scale-nursing work index [10], organisational
job satisfaction instrument [16] and nursing performance
instrument/individual patient care [22] respectively. These
instruments were adapted to the context of Australian
nursing practice environment for language, content and
structure [30,31]. The language component assessed
whether items in the instrument contained words that are
in use in the Australian context. The content component
assessed whether the themes of the instrument are relevant
to the Australian registered nurses. While the structure
assessed respondents‟ comfort with structural matters of
the instrument, such as the number of scale points in
questions, the length of the instrument. The adaptation
process covered review of existing literature, peer review,
pilot study and confirmatory factorial and reliability
analysis. The reliability analysis confirmed each of the
three domains having a Cronbach‟s standardized alpha
(CSA) value higher than the cut-off point of 0.7 (32, 33).
All the domains also had acceptable factorial stance with
factor loadings of at least 0.5 (34). Sample questions of
the survey questionnaire for each of the three domains are
provided in Appendix 1.
The on-on-one interviews began by reporting a
summary of the findings from the survey, that is, the score
on nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction
and quality of nursing care. This introduction provided a
context for posing an overarching question about
participants‟ feelings about their current nursing practice
environment and to open up a discussion relevant to the
research question. Query regarding the research question
read as; “We have been talking about the three factors;
nursing work environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and
quality of nursing care. Do you think these three are
related?” As prescribed in the literature [35,36], an
interview format was developed to prepare for the
interviews . The format was helpful to steer the interviews
to the extent that did not jeopardise the flow of
independent thinking process, of the interviewees.
3.2 Participants
The data for this paper came from 136 survey
respondents and 21 interviewees. In the survey sample,
more that 70% belonged to public hospitals and 95%
worked in hospital type work environment. The survey
respondents came from clinical practice areas of;
Medical/Surgical (23.6%), Critical care (18%), Midwifery
(10.6%), Mental health (8.9%), Aged care (8.1%), Peri-
operative (7.3%) and others (23.5%). Ninety two percent
of them are females, with an average age of 50. The
nursing classification composition of the survey sample is;
bedside/registered nurse (61%), nurse manager (15%),
clinical nurse specialists (13%), clinical nurse consultant
(7%), clinical nurse educators (2%) and nurse educators
(2%). Out of the 21 interviewees, the majority came from
public hospitals and belonged to variety of clinical
practice areas such as mixed medical, critical care, aged
care, midwifery and paediatrics. The nursing classification
of the interviewees are; bedside/registered nurses [7],
nurse managers [7], clinical nurse consultants [3], clinical
nurse specialists [2] and clinical educators [2]. The
interviewees‟ age ranged from 39 to 63 years.
3.3 Procedure
The Nursing & Midwifery Board (NMB), New South
Wales (NSW) had approved a request for assistance, in
recruiting participants for the survey questionnaire.
Subsequent to NMB’s approval, ethical clearance was also
received from the Human Research Ethics Committee of
the University of Western Sydney in Australia.
Participants in this study were recruited through purposive
sampling from the register of the NMB, NSW. The
respondents were required to be practicing nurses and
have a minimum of two years of experience in an inpatient
practice environment. These two desired characteristics of
the research participants were printed in the introduction
of the survey questionnaire. Such purposive recruitment
ensured a research focus on practice environment, where
nurses are likely to have high interaction with patients and
thereby possess a thorough view of the relationship
between the three domains.
The registrar at NMB had circulated survey packs in
hard copy, to 2050 nurses at their residential addresses. A
total of 157 packs were returned, achieving a response rate
of 7.6%. A return of the questionnaire was deemed to be
implied consent for voluntary participation. Sixty five
respondents agreed to an interview by returning the signed
interview consent forms, which they received during the
survey. The interviewees were recruited again with a
purposive method to arrive at nurses who belonged to a
variety of clinical practice areas (e.g. medical, critical care,
per-operative) and nursing classifications (e.g. clinical
nurse consultants, nurse managers, clinical nurse
educators, clinical nurse specialists, registered nurses).
Nurses from such a variety of backgrounds were expected
to provide pragmatic and comprehensive answers to the
research question. Both the data for survey questionnaire
and interview were collected in the year 2009.
4. Data Analysis
This section will explain how the data from the two
methods, were analysed to study how the domains of
nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and
quality of nursing care are affecting each other. There are
two parts in this section, the first part explains the
quantitative analysis technique of mediation by regression
and the next part is about the qualitative analysis of theme
identification.
American Journal of Nursing Research 13
4.1 Mediation by Regression with the Survey
Data
The mediator analysis technique was applied to learn
about the possibility of reciprocity between the three
domains of nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of nursing care. A mediator works
as the mechanism through which the independent variable
can exert full or partial influence on the dependent
variable [37]. Each domain was analysed for its role as a
mediator, between the reciprocal relationships of the other
two domains. The combined results of the mediator
analysis of each of the domains of nursing practice
environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of
nursing care, as shown in Figure 2, can reveal whether
there is reciprocity when the three domains are put in
relationships at once.
Figure 2. Mediators in the reciprocal relationship between nursing
practice environment (NPE), nurses‟ job satisfaction (JS) and quality of
nursing care (QNC)
Only detailed explanation of the mediating role of the
nursing practice environment is provided here, since the
steps are exactly the same for all of the three domains. In
this analysis, the task was to assess whether nursing
practice environment can influence the reciprocal
relationship between nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care. It should be clarified at this stage, that the
authors of this paper applied the mediation analysis not to
indicate cause and effect relationship between the domains.
Instead, the mediation analysis was as indication of a role
of nursing practice environment that influenced the
association between job satisfaction and quality of nursing
care. The following Figure 3 depicts the regression steps
for the mediator analysis on the domain of nursing
practice environment.
Figure 3. Mediator analysis on nursing practice environment as per
Barron & Kenny
The analysis ran three regressions as shown above [37].
The first was between nurses‟ job satisfaction and nursing
practice environment, to test the influence of nurses‟ job
satisfaction towards the possible mediator nursing practice
environment. The second had nurses‟ job satisfaction as
an independent domain impacting the domain of quality of
nursing care. Then the third and the last one had two
independent domains, nurses‟ job satisfaction and nursing
practice environment, impacting on the dependent variable
of quality of nursing care. In order to capture the
mediating role of nursing practice environment, between
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care from
both directions, another three regressions were run again.
This time, the first regression was between quality of
nursing care and nursing practice environment. The six
arrows, including the ones with the broken lines in Figure
3, reflect mediator analysis on nursing practice
environment from both directions.
According to reference [37], nursing practice
environment can be a mediator if four conditions are met:
first one, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing
care are found to have a significant influence on nursing
practice environment in the first regressions; second one,
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing practice
environment are found to be significant influencers to
each other in the second regressions; third one, the third
regressions show nursing practice environment to be a
significant influencer to quality of nursing care and
nurses‟ job satisfaction and lastly, the third regressions
show reduction in the degree to which nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of nursing care impact on each
other in comparison to that of the second regression.
In the above four conditions, the significance is decided
by the unstandardized coefficient (B) values at ranges of
p< 0.05 to p <0.001. Regarding condition four, if the
reduction is as such that the third regression is showing a
zero influence between nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care then nursing practice environment is
evidenced to be a single and dominant mediator [37].
Since this study is not expecting the mediation analysis to
represent a cause and effect relationship, the mediator role
of nursing practice environment was not statistically
validated by applying ‘sobel’ tests [37] or bootstrapping
procedures [38]. As it is, there are criticisms that
mediation results can indicate a valid causal relationship
[39]. Rather it is preferred to learn more of nursing
practice environment‟s role as a mediator, from nurses‟
real life experiences to be collected during interviews.
Literature [38] suggests that combination of quantitative
and qualitative information, can provide greater insights
into mediation relations.
4.2 Theme Identification with the Interview
Data
The data analysis started with the search of themes in
each interview. Themes refer to recurrent concepts that
describe aspects of experiences relevant to an inquiry [40].
Accordingly, themes were identified when discussions
reflected intense and recurrent feelings in an interviewee.
For example intense feeling was noticed, when an
interviewee expressed frustration in situations when nurse
administrators roll out impractical changes in the
workplace. This feeling had intensity, as it reflected the
interviewee‟s desire for greater control and respect in her
job. Moreover, the interviewee had expressed such feeling
of frustration frequently while describing interactions with
14 American Journal of Nursing Research
nursing administrators in the work environment. Thus, a
theme was coded as “interaction with nursing
administrators”. Codes such as “interaction with nursing
administrators” were considered provisional at this stage,
since it reflected experiences of individual nurses rather
than that of the collective group. The finalization of
themes involved further search of commonality, within the
group of 21 interviewees. This stage of analysis helped to
amend the themes with suitable aspects of the relevant
experience. Furthermore it could be assessed, whether the
themes were reflected by majority or minority in the group.
The amendment of the themes came to an end, when it
was felt that the themes are representing stable
experiences. A database of transcripts and memos were
maintained in the QSR NVivo™ 8, to support the analysis
process.
Three themes were finalized in relevance to the
research question in this paper. These are; one, interaction
between nurse managers and nurse clinicians, two,
interaction with new graduate registered nurses and three,
interaction with nursing administrators. Nurse managers
refer to nurses working in the role of unit manager, while
the nurse clinicians include nurses in classifications of
registered/bedside nurses, clinical nurse specialists,
clinical nurse educators and clinical nurse consultants. The
new graduate registered nurses refer to fresh graduates
from the university. Lastly, the nursing administrators
relate to nurses working at higher organizational level,
usually holding the position of Director of Nursing. It may
be noted that none of the interviewees in this study,
belonged to the roles of nursing administrators and new
graduate registered nurse.
5. Results
In this section, survey and the interview results are
presented to answer the research question: How are the
three domains of nursing practice environment , nurses‟
job satisfaction and quality of nursing care interrelated?
5.1 Understanding the Relationship between
the Domains with the Survey Data
The survey results answered the above mentioned
research question through mediation test on each of the
three domains in reciprocal directions, as shown in Figure
2. The combined picture of the three sets of mediation
analysis revealed that the nursing practice environment,
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care are
interrelated, with possibility of reciprocal relationship.
The analysis found each of the three domains to be
capable of partially mediating the relationship between the
other two domains. In this paper, to avoid being repetitive,
results are explained only for the analysis of mediation on
nursing practice environment. A summary of the
mediation test results on nursing practice environment are
presented in the following Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of mediator analysis on nursing practice environment (NPE) between reciprocal relationships of job satisfaction (JS) and
quality of nursing care (QNC)
Notes:
*** Unstandardised coefficient B value is significant at p <0.001 * Unstandardised coefficient B value is significant at p< 0.05
† Reduction in 3rd regression: 0.26
‡ Reduction in 3rd regression: 0.27
The mediator analysis results presented in the above
table examined the relationship in both directions, being
consistent to the intention of analysing reciprocal
relationships as depicted in Figure 3. One set of
regressions is for the direction where the relationship is
initiated at nurses‟ job satisfaction (JS). The other set of
regressions is for the other direction, where quality of
nursing care (QNC) is the starting point. The results
presented in Table 1 show that nursing practice
environment is in line with most of the Baron and
Kenny‟s [37] conditions of being a mediator in both
directions.
According to Baron and Kenny‟s first condition,
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care are
found to have a significant (p< 0.001 level) influence on
nursing practice environment. This is indicated by the
unstandardised coefficient value of 0.585 (p< 0.001 level,
for relationship initiating at nurses‟ job satisfaction) and
0.573 (p< 0.001 level, for relationship initiating at quality
of nursing care) in the column of 1 st step regressions in
Table 1. The unstandardised coefficient values reflect
explanatory power of nurses‟ job satisfaction or quality of
nursing care. It measures possible response effect in
nursing practice environment for a one standard deviation
change in nurses‟ job satisfaction or quality of nursing
care [34]. Readers can see Figure 3 to understand the
directions of relationships that the 1 st step regressions are
referring to.
The second condition is also met as nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of nursing care are found to be
Initiates at JS
1st step regression: JS to NPE
F (1, 133) = 68.9
2nd step regression: JS to QNC
F (1, 133) = 37.1
3rd step regression: JS + NPE to QNC
F (2,132) = 35.5
Unstandardized Coefficient B
Standard error
t-value Unstandardized Coefficient B
Standard error
t-value Unstandardized Coefficient B
Standard error
t-value
Constant 1.356 .391 3.464 2.664 .423 6.229 2.062 .404 5.108
JS .585*** .070 8.306 .464*** .076 6.094 .204*† .086 2.379
NPE .444*** .086 5.175
Initiates at QNC
1st step regression: QNC to NPE
F (1, 133) = 63.2
2nd step regression: QNC to JS
F(1, 133) = 37.14
3rd step regression: QNC + NPE to JS
F (2,132) = 38.5
Unstandardized
Coefficient B
Standard
error t-value
Unstandardized
Coefficient B
Standar
d error t-value
Unstandardized
Coefficient B
Standard
error t-value
Constant 1.57 .381 4.129 3.014 .409 7.365 2.275 .392 5.801
QNC .573*** .072 7.953 .471*** .077 6.094 .201*‡ .085 2.379
NPE .471*** .084 5.606
American Journal of Nursing Research 15
significant influencers to each other. The unstandardised
coefficient values of 0.464 (p<0.001 level, for relationships
initiating at nurses‟ job satisfaction) and 0.471 (p<0.001,
for the relationship initiating at quality of nursing care) in
the column of 2 nd
step regressions are supporting the claim.
The third condition of Baron and Kenny [37] has also
been matched as nursing practice environment is found to
be a significant influencer to quality of nursing care with
unstandardised coefficient value of 0.444 (p<0.001 level)
and to nurses‟ job satisfaction with unstandardised
coefficient value of 0.471 (p<0.001 level) respectively.
These data can be found in the column of 3 rd
step
regression in Table 1.
In line with the fourth condition, it is seen in Table 1,
there are reductions by unstandardised coefficient value of
0.26 (for relationship initiating at nurses‟ job satisfaction)
and 0.27 (for relationship initiating at quality of nursing
care) in the 3 rd
regressions from that of the corresponding
2 nd
regressions. However, contrary to the guidance of
Baron and Kenny [37], the 3 rd
regressions still show the
relationships between nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care to be significant with unstandardised
coefficient values of 0.204 (p<0.05 level ) and 0.201
(p<0.05 level).
In view of recent literature [38,41], such a situation
indicates that the proposed mediator (i.e. nursing practice
environment) is not the only domain to account for the
relationship between nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care. Zhao et al. (41: 14) labels such a role of
mediator as “complementary mediator” and Mackinnon et
al (38: 602) labels it as “partial mediator”. Therefore the
results presented in Table 1, indicates nursing practice
environment to be a partial mediator that partially
influences the reciprocal relationships between nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of nursing care. Additionally, it
implies actions taken at the point of nurses‟ job
satisfaction or quality of nursing care should influence the
situation in a nursing practice environment and that, such
influence can have a cascading impact to the third domain.
Having established the possibility of a partial
mediator‟s role for the domain of nursing practice
environment, it is time to look into analysis of mediations
on the other two domains of nurses‟ job satisfaction and
quality of nursing care. It was found that mediation results
on these two domains met the first three conditions of
Baron and Kenny (1986) completely. Regarding the fourth
condition, the domain of nurses‟ job satisfaction showed
reductions of 0.12 (for the relationship initiating at nursing
practice environment) and 0.19 (for the relationship
initiating at quality of nursing care). Similarly, on the
fourth condition, the mediation analysis on quality of
nursing care projected reductions of 0.11 (for the
relationship initiating at nursing practice environment) and
0.18 (for the relationship initiating at nurses‟ job
satisfaction. These results confirm that both the domains
of nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care can
also be partial mediators between the reciprocal
relationships of the other two domains. Therefore the
collective view of the mediation analysis supports, that the
relationships between the three domains can be reciprocal.
With the support of the survey result, the next section (5.2)
will look into the interview findings to understand the
rationale behind the relationship.
5.2 Understanding the Relationship between
the Domains with the Interview Data
Nurses gave account of experiences from workplace as
they were asked about how the three domains of nursing
practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care interrelate. Their account exhibited a
common consensus that the three domains are definitely
interrelated. A sense of reciprocity in the interrelationship
of the domains was also indicated, in some of the
responses. For instance, a nurse manager stated:
They (the domains of nursing practice environment,
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care) affect
each other all the time. I don‟t see that one is coming
before the others. (NM-JK).
As mentioned in the introduction, the interviews were
expected to shed light on the possible reciprocal
relationship between the domains from the human
relations perspective. Hence interaction between nurses in
different roles (i.e. nursing administrators, nurse managers,
nurse clinicians, new graduate registered nurses), in day to
day work life was taken as the context to analyse the
interviews. The interview result are segregated into three
sections to highlight, how nurses perceived each of the
domains of nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of care to impact the other two
domains.
5.2.1 Interaction between Nurses: Nursing
Practice Environment Impacting the other
Domains
An ample number of examples of interactions between
nurses emerged as they were describing the
interrelationship between nursing practice environment
and the other two domains. Nurse clinicians mentioned
that guidance from managers in the work environment,
has a significant influence on their work and the quality of
care. This influence came in different forms, such as the
way a manager handles clinical errors, provides guidance
for quality care, recognises clinicians for their hard work
and manages resources of staffing and/or medical
equipment in the ward.
Similarly, managers mentioned their dependence on the
skill of the clinicians to maintain the quality of care in the
workplace. While managers are not delivering direct
patient care, they expressed that they are still responsible
for the quality of care and are involved in its critical points.
They gave accounts of guiding clinicians to deliver quality
care by activities such as coordinating resources (e.g. staff,
equipment), maintaining a high profile on the floor,
ensuring staff education, endorsing standards of
Australian Council on Healthcare standards (ACHS) about
infection control, management of medication, discharge
procedures, reporting quality of care [42]. Therefore the
accounts from both nurse managers and nurse clinicians,
indicated that interactions between them were an
important element, through which nursing practice
environment impacted the quality of nursing care.
The interactions between nurses that generate quality
care, as mentioned above, were also found to be
dependent on a sense of “trust”. As a nurse manager
expressed:
16 American Journal of Nursing Research
I think you set the standard, you know the quality of
your staff and you trust the staff to give the best possible
care. (NM-BC).
Here, the manager mentions that quality of care is
developed through exchanges of managers‟ support and
the clinicians‟ effort towards care. The statement, more
importantly, indicates that trust has a role to play in these
exchanges in the nursing practice environment. From
discussions with interviewees, such a role of trust seemed
quite necessary and logical. This is so, as the managers
cannot be certain about how clinicians will actually
deliver the care when they are in face to face contact with
patients. Therefore, the managers have to provide the
guidance to clinicians and trust that the clinicians will do
their best. Likewise, the clinicians need to trust that the
managers‟ guidance will be effective in providing quality
care to patients. The clinicians can comply with managers‟
guidance with that trust in mind.
The interview data provided a similar picture in how
nursing practice environment impacted nurses‟ job
satisfaction. Nurses‟ accounts described how interactions
between nursing administrators (e.g. Director of Nursing,
General Manager) and nurses (e.g. nurse managers,
clinicians) in the work environment, sometimes, generated
emotions that negatively impacted nurses‟ sense of job
satisfaction. During the discussion, majority of nurses
explained that there is not enough visibility of the nursing
administrators in the work place. While nurses understood
that the nursing administrators have just too many things
to do, they still worried that the lack of visibility is
deterring the administrators from being (re) oriented to the
working life of nurses at bedside. This note about
disoriented nursing administrators is important; it could
explain several of the nurse managers‟ frustrations with
their job when administrators directed them to do things
that they felt, were not necessarily practical.
Few of the nurses reflected on the visibility of nursing
administrators a bit differently from the above. A nurse
clinician explained that administrator‟s visit to the
workplace generates a positive feeling for their job as it
shows that the top management is aware of the hard work
in the „coal face‟. Another nurse manager showed stronger
negative perception about nursing administrators, stating
that the administrator‟s distance from the coal face
portrays a disrespectful attitude towards nurses. She used
the following words to explain this sense of disrespect:
Our director of nursing, she has been director of nursing
for three years. In three years she has been in theatre room
once or not at all…she does not give the respect to the
staff to even come down to the theatre units… you are only
going to see the DON (Director of Nursing) if you are in
trouble. (NM-SD).
The above information provide evidences to state that
nurses’ interactions with nursing administrators in the
nursing practice environment, can significantly influence
their feelings towards job. Therefore, the research result
can propose that nursing practice environment can impact
nurses‟ sense of job satisfaction through exchanges
between nurses. In summary, the interview result
identified the interaction between nurses to be an
important platform for the interrelationship between the
domains of nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of care. Additionally, it is revealed
that affective aspects such as “trust” and “respect” are
crucial in maintaining a healthy interrelationship between
the domains.
5.2.2 Interactions between Nurses: Nurses’ Job Satisfaction Impacting the other Domains
During discussions with the interviewees, it was
recognised that the positive sense of job satisfaction from
successful exchanges between nurses, as explained in
section 5.2.1, can perpetuate more positive interactions in
the nursing practice environment. Nurses mentioned that
when they enjoy the job and their interactions with
colleagues, they exert a positive influence on the work
environment. A nurse manager described the interplay
between job satisfaction and the positive influences with
the following words:
I‟m very fortunate in particular…that all the Nursing
Unit Managers…get on really well and we can talk to each
other, and debrief with each other, and support each other.
So when the chips are down, one person is having a bad
day or you know having a hard time at work, we can be
around there to support that person right. So in that sense
its good job satisfaction for all. (NUM-CD).
A nurse clinician gave similar account as she mentioned
how a nurse in state of contentment, is more likely to be
supportive in the work environment. Such support is
exhibited through simple actions such as, adjusting her
roster hours to help colleagues. In return, the colleagues
usually also express gratitude or offer an obligation of
similar help in future; thereby generating force towards
future positive interactions in the nursing practice
environment. Furthermore, these perpetuating interactions
could enhance quality of nursing care as a satisfied nurse
is likely to be nurturing to patients. Support to this notion
came from another clinician as she stated:
I think if you don‟t have job satisfaction then you
become like a machine. And you can‟t give to people if
you don‟t have anything to give. Part of job satisfaction is
part of nurturing as well; nurturing patients, nurturing
other people. (NC-RM).
In the above statement, nurses‟ job satisfaction appears
as an important factor in developing a sense of nurturing
within the workplace. The clinician perceives that a nurse
cannot be expected to offer nurturing to patients and
colleagues around her, if she herself is not satisfied. The
view of the nurses as presented here, conveys that nurses‟
job satisfaction can create a wide impact in the other
domains of nursing practice environment and quality of
care. In addition to that, the findings in this section
highlight that interactions between nurses can be a vehicle
for the interrelation between nurses‟ job satisfaction and
the other two domains.
5.2.3. Interactions between Nurses: Quality of Nursing Care Impacting the other Domains
Nurses in different roles, specially the nurse managers
and nurse clinicians, were seen to feel an obligation to
promote quality of care to the best of their ability. On
occasions, nurse managers expressed dissatisfaction when
administrative work blocked them from guiding clinicians
in patient care. Their dissatisfaction is associated with the
perception that guiding clinicians in patient care is part of
their obligation to patient care.
American Journal of Nursing Research 17
It was also evident that majority of the nurses accepted
achievements with patients, as crucial motivation for their
job. This notion can be noticed in the following statements:
I would say that 90% of the reason I stay in this job is
because I enjoy what I can do for patients. (NC-HH).
We work one on one with the women particularly in
labour. We know the women in our team because we case
load them so we look after them through the pregnancy.
We come in for the birth 90% of the time and then we care
for them two weeks after their birth. We believe the
women are getting excellent care from us. We get good
job satisfaction from what we do. (NC-KD).
Another point to note from the second statement (KD),
is that the midwife has given a clear indication that quality
of nursing care is impacting on nurses‟ sense of job
satisfaction. It is seen that her sense of job satisfaction is
enhanced, as she believed to have delivered excellent care
to patients.
Once the finding in the above paragraph is placed
against that of section 5.2.1, where quality of care was
found to be developed through exchanges between nurses,
we get a context to claim a similar role of the same (i.e.
exchanges between nurses) in maintaining the
interrelationship between quality of care and nurses‟ job
satisfaction. Thereby, successful interactions between
nurses are necessary to generate quality care and to ensure
positive consequences of nurses‟ job satisfaction.
The notion in the above paragraph was further endorsed
with discussions of exchanges between experienced
registered nurses (i.e. nurse managers, nurse clinicians)
and the new graduate registered nurses. Nurses‟
discussions often centred on the issue that new graduate
registered nurses, when first emerging from university, are
not yet ready to handle basic care of patients. The
experienced nurses believed that the lack of skill of the
new graduates, is due to the inadequate hospital work
exposure in university education of nursing. A few of the
nurse managers expressed grievances that sometimes new
graduates have a certain superior attitude, being university
trained against some of the hospital trained senior nurses,
which makes it harder to work with them. It is quite easy
to perceive how such discords between experienced and
new graduate registered nurses could threaten the quality
of care and nurses‟ sense of job satisfaction.
A constructive suggestion to mitigate the discord
between the experienced and new graduate registered
nurses came from a nurse manager. She referred to a
practice where clinical nurse educators used to be
physically present as new graduates performed different
tasks in the ward. The manager believed such practice was
effective in facilitating quality of care and nurturing
nurses as;
It broke down that barrier of new graduates feeling like
they have to know, broke down that barrier of being
embarrassed to ask. It helped with that gap between senior
and junior nurses where senior nurses felt respected and
junior nurses focused on improving care and learning from
what nurses on the wards are doing. (NM-JK).
In the above statement, interactions between nurses are
found to be facilitating quality of care as new graduates
are learning and improving care under the guidance of
experienced (senior) nurses. An enhancement in nurses‟
sense of job satisfaction is also indicated here, since
experienced nurses felt respected when new graduates
learnt from them.
The information in sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 have
told stories of interactions between nurses to exhibit how
each of the three domains of nursing practice environment,
nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of nursing care is
impacting each other. Therefore, the interview result
answered the research question by identifying „interaction
between nurses‟ as a vehicle through which the reciprocal
relationship between the domains are kept in motion. This
result is consistent to the quantitative one, provided in
section 5.1, which indicated a reciprocal relationship
between the three domains is possible. The next section
will discuss the implication of the findings in this paper.
6. Discussions
This paper provides support for the perspective of a
reciprocal relationship between nursing practice
environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of
nursing care. Such perspective adds to previous
researchers‟ work [4,6] where, on the platform of
structure-process-outcome paradigm [7], a better
healthcare delivery is aimed through interventions in the
nursing practice environment. Whereas, the knowledge of
reciprocity between the domains communicates that
improvement in healthcare delivery should come from
interventions across the three domains. It is crucial to
avoid management initiatives that may make the nursing
practice environment efficient in the metric of resource
utilisation, at the cost of nurses‟ job satisfaction and/or
quality of nursing care. Such note of caution is necessary
as rising cost of healthcare is making it harder to deliver
quality care [43,44] . Nursing management need to be
vigilant against cost cutting initiatives that can
compromise ethical nursing practices and quality of care.
Alternatively, researchers and practitioners should
research for balanced progress in each of the domains of
nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and
quality of nursing care.
Another significant insight from this paper is the role of
human relations, in maintaining positive status in each of
the three domains. It was seen that healthy interactions
between nurses in different roles (i.e. nursing
administrators, nurse managers, nurse clinicians and new
graduate registered nurses) are associated with feelings
such as trust, respect and consequently provide positive
disposition to nurses regarding their nursing practice
environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction and quality of
nursing care. On the other hand, absence of or unhealthy
interactions between nurses were seen to create the
opposite consequences. A point to note here is that certain
notions of „interaction between nurses‟, such as possibility
of opposite consequences and dependence on trust, makes
the phenomenon very similar to that of “Social
Exchanges”. Blau explains social exchanges as reciprocal
actions based on trust and motivated towards “ends that
are mutually advantageous and can only be achieved
through interactions with other persons (45: 5) ”. Due to
the presence of trust, social exchanges are not negotiated
in concrete terms and follow the basic process of “to
return good for good received…to return evil for evil that
has been done” (Adam Smith, cited in 45: 19).
18 American Journal of Nursing Research
As this paper finds the „interaction between nurses‟ to
be similar to the phenomenon of „social exchanges‟, it
makes a case for nursing management to invest behind
human relations. Nursing management should invest time
and money to understand the nature of affective feelings
that are desirable for nurses in different roles. Priority
should be given to management practices that can
facilitate trust and healthy exchanges between nurses.
Practitioners should be guided with further research to
define trustworthy relationships amongst nursing staff
[46]. In light of the interviews in this research, it is felt
that some simple actions, for instance, monthly rewards to
nurses for exemplary guidance to new graduates or
occasional ward events with the director of nursing in an
informal capacity, could generate valuable benefits in this
regard.
Nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job satisfaction
and quality of nursing care are three important domains of
nursing work life. As nurses interact with each other to
deliver patient care, they also experience an
interrelationship between these three domains. The human
relations aspect in the interrelationship between the three
domains, makes it apparent that initiatives in one domain
will inherently impact the others. Therefore, management
practices in nursing administration cannot be
compartmentalised, into any one of the domains.
Investment in human relations seems to be the key to
achieve benefits across the three domains. Given the
understanding that unhealthy interaction between nurses
can create mistrust and jeopardise progress in the three
domains (i.e. nursing practice environment, nurses’ job
satisfaction and quality of nursing care), there is little
doubt to the merit of such investment.
7. Limitations
One important limitation of this paper, is that the survey
achieved only a 7.6% response rate. This could have made
the study vulnerable to non-response bias, where a
“significant number of people in the survey sample do not
respond to the questionnaire and that these people have
different characteristics from those who do respond,
moreover when those different characteristics have
importance to the study” (47: 10). An attempt taken to
minimise the possible non-response bias was to mention
the screening criteria (i.e. nurses to be currently in practice
and having minimum of two years‟ experience at inpatient
NSW health organisations) in the survey questionnaire.
However, in line with the low response rate, this paper is
not proposed to represent a generalisable picture of the
nursing practice environment in NSW health service
organisations. In any case, proposition of ‘generalisability’
is not consistent to the inherent design of this paper, as the
paper applied mixed methods, which included qualitative
analysis as well.
8. Conclusion
This paper found evidence to argue that the relationship
between the nursing practice environment, nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of nursing care can be reciprocal.
Whereas, the current literature mostly studied the
relationship between the three domains in one direction,
assuming improvement in nursing practice environment
will lead to similar consequences in nurses‟ job
satisfaction and quality of nursing care. Such assumption
is risky as hospital practitioners are focusing on cost
efficiency, ignoring nurses’ voices in this matter. The
paper proposes, management practices that invest for
better interactions between nurses, will benefit from
enhancements in each of the three domains of nursing
practice environment, nurses’ job satisfaction and quality
of nursing care.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Anneke
Fitzgerald for her guidance during the PhD study, that
helped to conceptualise the paper.
References
[1] Aiken LH, Sermeus W, Van den Heede K, Sloane DM, Busse R, McKee M, et al. Patient safety, satisfaction, and quality of hospital
care: cross sectional surveys of nurses and patients in 12 countries
in Europe and the United States. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2012;344.
[2] McClure M, Poulin M, Sovie M, Wandelt M. Attraction and Retention of Professional Nurses Kansas City: American
Academy of Nurses; 1983.
[3] Patrician PA, Shang J, Lake ET. Organizational determinants of work outcomes and quality care ratings among Army Medical
Department registered nurses. Research in Nursing & Health. 2010;33(2):99-110.
[4] Schmalenberg C, Kramer M. Essentials of Productive Nurse Work Environment. Nursing Research. 2008;57(1):2-13.
[5] Sermeus W, Aiken LH, Van den Heede K, Rafferty AM, Griffiths P, Moreno-Casbas MT, et al. Nurse forecasting in Europe (RN4CAST): Rationale, design and methodology. BMC nursing.
2011;10(1):6.
[6] Van Bogaert P, Clarke S, Roelant E, Meulemans H, Van de Heyning P. Impacts of unit-level nurse practice environment and
burnout on nurse-reported outcomes: a multilevel modelling approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2010;19(11-12):1664-74.
[7] Donabedian A. Quality of care: problems of measurement. II. Some issues in evaluating the quality of nursing care. American
Journal of Public Health 1969;59(10):4.
[8] Hess R, Norman LD, Donelan K. Are Nurses Ready for Health Care Reform? A Decade of Survey Research. Nursing Economics.
2012;30(6):318.
[9] Kramer M, Schmalenberg C. Development and Evaluation of Essentials of Magnetism Tool. Journal of Nursing Administration.
2004;34(7/8):365-78.
[10] Lake ET. Development of the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index Resarch in Nursing & Health 2002;25:176-
88.
[11] Warshawsky NE, Havens DS. Global use of the practice environment scale of the Nursing Work Index. Nursing Research.
2011;60(1):17.
[12] Ravari ALI, Bazargan M, Vanaki Z, Mirzaei T. Job satisfaction among Iranian hospital-based practicing nurses: examining the
influence of self-expectation, social interaction and organisational
situations. Journal of Nursing Management. 2012;20(4):522-33.
[13] Thompson ER, Phua FTT. A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction. Group & Organization Management. 2012;37(3):275- 307.
[14] Weiss HM. Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource
Management Review. 2002;12(2):173-94.
[15] Locke EA. Waht is Job Satisfaction? Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. 1969;4:309-36.
American Journal of Nursing Research 19
[16] Hinshaw AS, Smeltzer CH, Atwood JR. Innovative retention strategies for nursing staff. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 1987;17(6):8-16.
[17] Sauter MA, Boyle D, Wallace D, Andrews JL, Johnson MS, Bates M, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the Organizational Job
Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement.
1997;5(1):53-69.
[18] Hinshaw AS, Smeltzer C, Atwood JR. Innovative retention strategies for nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Administration.
1987;17(6).
[19] Anne MW. The delivery of quality nursing care: a grounded theory study of the nurse’s perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1998;27(4):808-16.
[20] Lindgren M, Andersson IS. The Karen instruments for measuring quality of nursing care: construct validity and internal consistency.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2011;23(3):292-
301.
[21] Donabedian A. Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care. Milbank Quarterly. 2005;83(4):691-729.
[22] Greenslade JH, Jimmieson NL. Distinguishing between task and contextual performance for nurses: development of a job
performance scale. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007;58(6):602-
11.
[23] McClure M. Magnet Hospitals: Insights and Issues. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 2005;29(3):198-201.
[24] American Nurses Credentialing Centre. Magnet Recognition Program. 2010.
[25] Aiken LH, Buchan J, Ball J, Rafferty AM. Transformative impact of Magnet designation: England case study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2008;17(24):3330-7.
[26] Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, Lake ET, Cheney T. Effects of Hospital Care Environment on Patient Mortality and Nurse
Outcomes. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2008;38(5):223-9.
[27] Luzinski C, Lundmark V. State of the Science Related to Nurse Work Environments, Safe Practices, and Organizational Outcomes.
Journal of Nursing Administration. 2012;42(10):S1-S2.
[28] Ulrich BT, Lavandero Rn, Hart KA, Woods D, Leggett J, Taylor D. Critical Care Nurses’ Work Environments: A Baseline Status Report. Critical Care Nurse. 2006;26(5):46-57.
[29] Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1(2):112-33.
[30] Snyder C, Watson M, Jackson J, Cella D, Halyard M. Patient Reported Outcome Instrument Selection: DEsigning a
Measurement Strategy. Value in Health. 2007;Vol. 10:S76-S85.
[31] Dawis RV. Scale Construction. Journal of Counselling Psychology. 1987;34(4):481-9.
[32] Joseph F. Hair J, William C. B, Barry J. B, Rolpf E. A. Mutlivariate Data Analysis. New Jersesy: Prentice Hall; 2009.
[33] Malhotra N. Basic Marketing Research; a decision-making approach. New Jersey 07458: Prentice Hall; 2009.
[34] Joseph F. Hair J, Black WC, Babin BJ, Andersom RE. Mulivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.
[35] Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing & constructing mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California 91320: Sage
Publications, Inc.; 2007.
[36] Fylan F. Chapter 6: Semi-structured interviewing. In J. Miles & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A Handbook of Research Methods for Clinical and
Health Psychology New York, USA: Oxford University Press;
2005.
[37] Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 1986;51(6):1173-82.
[38] MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS. Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58(1):593-614.
[39] Fiedler K, Schott M, Meiser T. What mediation analysis can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2011;47(6):1231-
6.
[40] Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory.
Health Services Research. 2007;42(4):1758-72.
[41] Zhao X, Lynch JG, Jr., Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths About Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 37, August 2010. 2010:p. 14.
[42] Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. EQuIP 5 Guidelines. 2010.
[43] Zittel B, Ezzeddine SH, Makatjane M, Graham I, Luangamornlert S, Pemo T. Divergence and convergence in nursing and health care among six countries participating in ICN’s 2010 Global
Nursing Leadership Institute. International Nursing Review.
2012;59(1):48-54.
[44] Warelow P, Edward K-L, Vinek J. Care: What Nurses Say and What Nurses Do. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2008;22(3):146-53.
[45] Blau PM. Exchange and Power in Social life. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1986.
[46] Mullarkey M, Duffy A, Timmins F. Trust between nursing management and staff in critical care: a literature review. Nursing in Critical Care. 2011;16(2):85-91.
[47] Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.; 2007.
Appendix 1. Sample Questions in the
Three Domains
Nursing Practice Environment o Cultural values: Concern for patients is paramount Cultural values are transmitted to new team
members
o Nurse manager ability Nurses are praised & recognised for a job well
done
Nurse unit managers provide the needed resources o Nurse participation in hospital affairs The Director of Nursing in the hospital is highly
visible and accessible to staff
The Director of Nursing in the hospital is equal in power & authority to other top-level hospital executives
o Nursing foundations for quality of care There is an active quality assurance program There is a preceptor program for newly hired
registered nurses
o Staffing and resource adequacy Adequate support services allow me to spend time
with my patients
Generally, there are enough staff to get work done o Nurse-doctor relations Doctors & nurses have good working relations There is collaboration (joint practice) between
nurses & doctors
Nurses’ job satisfaction My job doesn‟t add up to anything significant If I had to make the decision all over again, I
would choose the same line of work
Quality of nursing care Generally, nurses I work with evaluate the
effectiveness of nursing care
Generally, nurses meet emotional needs of patients
Please note that the all the questions in the three
domains had item a scale of: 1 = Strongly disagree , 2 =
Disagree , 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neutral , 5 =
Somewhat agree , 6 = Agree and 7 = Strongly agree.