政策偏离的障碍:对政策制定者和一线护士的混合方法研究

John Newans, N. Siddiqui
{"title":"政策偏离的障碍:对政策制定者和一线护士的混合方法研究","authors":"John Newans, N. Siddiqui","doi":"10.12691/ajnr-9-5-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Deviation from the policy at the point of care is frequently studied as a balancing act of health professionals, resulting in a lesser focus on barriers leading to such deviation. This study investigated practices of policy application or deviation with two aims. One, to assess if the frontline nursing staff is applying or deviating from the policy. Two, to understand the barriers that lead to policy deviation from the perspectives of policymakers and frontline staff. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was applied, with a quantitative survey first (n=50) and then two qualitative focus group discussions. Data was collected in 2018 within a Local Health District (LHD) in New South Wales, Australia. Most respondents (96%) rated policy application to be the usual practice at work. Despite that, survey respondents (54%) agreed to have discretionally acted against policy requirements. Frontline nurses deviated from policy when they perceived a lack of functional merit. Examples of barriers that contributed to deviation from policy are unstructured policy review, inadequate support for policy writing and communication challenges during policy implementation. These barriers were jeopardizing appropriate policy development and implementation and often negatively influenced the functional merit of policy. A few known strategies, such as appointing policy champions and promoting policy messages through a combination of channels, should be considered to mitigate the identified barriers. Future studies can explore effective ways to manage policy deviation rather than relying on street-level bureaucracy.","PeriodicalId":210760,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Nursing Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers Contributing to Policy Deviation: A Mixed Methods Study of Policymakers and Frontline Nurses\",\"authors\":\"John Newans, N. Siddiqui\",\"doi\":\"10.12691/ajnr-9-5-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Deviation from the policy at the point of care is frequently studied as a balancing act of health professionals, resulting in a lesser focus on barriers leading to such deviation. This study investigated practices of policy application or deviation with two aims. One, to assess if the frontline nursing staff is applying or deviating from the policy. Two, to understand the barriers that lead to policy deviation from the perspectives of policymakers and frontline staff. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was applied, with a quantitative survey first (n=50) and then two qualitative focus group discussions. Data was collected in 2018 within a Local Health District (LHD) in New South Wales, Australia. Most respondents (96%) rated policy application to be the usual practice at work. Despite that, survey respondents (54%) agreed to have discretionally acted against policy requirements. Frontline nurses deviated from policy when they perceived a lack of functional merit. Examples of barriers that contributed to deviation from policy are unstructured policy review, inadequate support for policy writing and communication challenges during policy implementation. These barriers were jeopardizing appropriate policy development and implementation and often negatively influenced the functional merit of policy. A few known strategies, such as appointing policy champions and promoting policy messages through a combination of channels, should be considered to mitigate the identified barriers. Future studies can explore effective ways to manage policy deviation rather than relying on street-level bureaucracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":210760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Nursing Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Nursing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12691/ajnr-9-5-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12691/ajnr-9-5-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在护理点偏离政策经常被研究为保健专业人员的平衡行为,导致较少关注导致这种偏离的障碍。本研究调查政策应用或偏离的实践有两个目的。一是评估一线护理人员是否在执行或偏离政策。第二,从政策制定者和一线工作人员的角度了解导致政策偏离的障碍。采用解释性顺序混合方法设计,首先进行定量调查(n=50),然后进行两次定性焦点小组讨论。数据于2018年在澳大利亚新南威尔士州的一个地方卫生区(LHD)收集。大多数受访者(96%)认为保单申请是工作中的惯常做法。尽管如此,调查受访者(54%)同意他们曾随意违反政策要求。当一线护士意识到缺乏功能价值时,他们就会偏离政策。导致偏离政策的障碍包括:无结构的政策审查、对政策撰写的支持不足以及政策实施过程中的沟通挑战。这些障碍妨碍适当的政策制定和执行,并往往对政策的功能价值产生不利影响。应该考虑一些已知的战略,例如任命政策倡导者和通过多种渠道宣传政策信息,以减轻已确定的障碍。未来的研究可以探索管理政策偏差的有效途径,而不是依赖于街头官僚主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Barriers Contributing to Policy Deviation: A Mixed Methods Study of Policymakers and Frontline Nurses
Deviation from the policy at the point of care is frequently studied as a balancing act of health professionals, resulting in a lesser focus on barriers leading to such deviation. This study investigated practices of policy application or deviation with two aims. One, to assess if the frontline nursing staff is applying or deviating from the policy. Two, to understand the barriers that lead to policy deviation from the perspectives of policymakers and frontline staff. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was applied, with a quantitative survey first (n=50) and then two qualitative focus group discussions. Data was collected in 2018 within a Local Health District (LHD) in New South Wales, Australia. Most respondents (96%) rated policy application to be the usual practice at work. Despite that, survey respondents (54%) agreed to have discretionally acted against policy requirements. Frontline nurses deviated from policy when they perceived a lack of functional merit. Examples of barriers that contributed to deviation from policy are unstructured policy review, inadequate support for policy writing and communication challenges during policy implementation. These barriers were jeopardizing appropriate policy development and implementation and often negatively influenced the functional merit of policy. A few known strategies, such as appointing policy champions and promoting policy messages through a combination of channels, should be considered to mitigate the identified barriers. Future studies can explore effective ways to manage policy deviation rather than relying on street-level bureaucracy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Nurses Perception of Contact Precaution in Preventing Multi-Drug Resistance Acinetobacter baumanii Outbreak in ICU A Study on the Correlation between Depression, Self-Efficacy and Hope of Nursing Vocational College Students under Public Emergencies Communication Barriers between Nurses and Patients during Hospitalization in Saudi Arabia Nursing Friendly Hospital: Improving Working Environments for Nurses in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia The COVID Catastrophe: Counting the Cost of Crisis amongst the Critical Care Nursing Workforce in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1