考察长期护理中外国和美国教育护士的人力资本

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Nursing Regulation Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/S2155-8256(23)00088-1
Roy A. Thompson PhD, MSN, RN, Susan G. Silva PhD, Kirsten N. Corazzini PhD, FGSA, Thomas R. Konrad PhD, Michael P. Cary, Jr PhD, RN, Eleanor S. McConnell PhD, RN
{"title":"考察长期护理中外国和美国教育护士的人力资本","authors":"Roy A. Thompson PhD, MSN, RN,&nbsp;Susan G. Silva PhD,&nbsp;Kirsten N. Corazzini PhD, FGSA,&nbsp;Thomas R. Konrad PhD,&nbsp;Michael P. Cary,&nbsp;Jr PhD, RN,&nbsp;Eleanor S. McConnell PhD, RN","doi":"10.1016/S2155-8256(23)00088-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Recruiting foreign-educated nurses (FENs) is a strategy to reduce staffing shortages of registered nurses (RNs) practicing in long-term care (LTC) in the United States. However, little is known about how FENs compare to U.S.-educated nurses (USENs) in their innate abilities and skills, also known as human capital.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare human capital among FENs and USENs practicing in LTC.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This cross-sectional study used data from the 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses to compare human capital scores between FENs and USENs. Human capital scores consisting of highest nursing qualification, skill-based certifications, number of state licensures, years of experience, multi-state employment, and multilingual ability were constructed and compared using analysis of covariance. Covariates were race, ethnicity, marriage/partnership, adults at home, children at home, direct patient care, and practice scope.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The sample included 1,887 RNs (92.8% USENs and 7.2% FENs). Most RNs were female (92.3%), were aged ≥50 years (56.4%), were non-Hispanic White (78.3%), were married/partnered (68.0%), provided direct care (44%), and had full practice scope (71.7%). FENs versus USENs had a higher proportion reporting full scope of practice (80.7% vs. 71.0%, </span><em>p</em> = .0155). The mean human capital score for the total sample was 9.8 ± 1.3. Human capital scores were higher among FENs (<em>M</em> = 11.3, <em>SD</em> = 1.2) than USENs (<em>M</em> = 9.6, <em>SD</em> = 1.3, <em>p</em> &lt; .0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>FENs bring a higher level of human capital to LTC settings, which suggests that they have an increased capacity to provide the needed person-centered care to positively impact care quality and improve outcomes in LTC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining Human Capital Among Foreign- and U.S.-Educated Nurses in Long-term Care\",\"authors\":\"Roy A. Thompson PhD, MSN, RN,&nbsp;Susan G. Silva PhD,&nbsp;Kirsten N. Corazzini PhD, FGSA,&nbsp;Thomas R. Konrad PhD,&nbsp;Michael P. Cary,&nbsp;Jr PhD, RN,&nbsp;Eleanor S. McConnell PhD, RN\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2155-8256(23)00088-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Recruiting foreign-educated nurses (FENs) is a strategy to reduce staffing shortages of registered nurses (RNs) practicing in long-term care (LTC) in the United States. However, little is known about how FENs compare to U.S.-educated nurses (USENs) in their innate abilities and skills, also known as human capital.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare human capital among FENs and USENs practicing in LTC.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This cross-sectional study used data from the 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses to compare human capital scores between FENs and USENs. Human capital scores consisting of highest nursing qualification, skill-based certifications, number of state licensures, years of experience, multi-state employment, and multilingual ability were constructed and compared using analysis of covariance. Covariates were race, ethnicity, marriage/partnership, adults at home, children at home, direct patient care, and practice scope.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The sample included 1,887 RNs (92.8% USENs and 7.2% FENs). Most RNs were female (92.3%), were aged ≥50 years (56.4%), were non-Hispanic White (78.3%), were married/partnered (68.0%), provided direct care (44%), and had full practice scope (71.7%). FENs versus USENs had a higher proportion reporting full scope of practice (80.7% vs. 71.0%, </span><em>p</em> = .0155). The mean human capital score for the total sample was 9.8 ± 1.3. Human capital scores were higher among FENs (<em>M</em> = 11.3, <em>SD</em> = 1.2) than USENs (<em>M</em> = 9.6, <em>SD</em> = 1.3, <em>p</em> &lt; .0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>FENs bring a higher level of human capital to LTC settings, which suggests that they have an increased capacity to provide the needed person-centered care to positively impact care quality and improve outcomes in LTC.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nursing Regulation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nursing Regulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2155825623000881\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Regulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2155825623000881","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景招聘外国教育的护士(FENs)是减少美国长期护理(LTC)注册护士(RNs)人员短缺的一种策略。然而,人们对FENs与在美国接受教育的护士(USENs)在先天能力和技能(也称为人力资本)方面的比较知之甚少。目的比较实习护士和实习护士的人力资本状况。方法本横断面研究使用2018年全国注册护士抽样调查数据,比较注册护士和注册护士的人力资本得分。人力资本得分由最高护理资格、技能证书、州执照数量、经验年数、多州就业和多语言能力组成,并使用协方差分析进行比较。协变量为种族、民族、婚姻/伴侣关系、家中成人、家中儿童、直接患者护理和实践范围。结果共纳入RNs 1887份,其中USENs占92.8%,FENs占7.2%。大多数注册护士为女性(92.3%),年龄≥50岁(56.4%),非西班牙裔白人(78.3%),已婚/有伴侣(68.0%),提供直接护理(44%),有完整执业范围(71.7%)。FENs与USENs相比,报告全范围手术的比例更高(80.7% vs. 71.0%, p = 0.0155)。总样本的平均人力资本得分为9.8±1.3。FENs的人力资本得分(M = 11.3, SD = 1.2)高于USENs (M = 9.6, SD = 1.3, p <。)。结论fens为LTC环境带来了更高水平的人力资本,这表明他们有更强的能力提供所需的以人为本的护理,从而积极影响LTC的护理质量和改善结果。
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
Examining Human Capital Among Foreign- and U.S.-Educated Nurses in Long-term Care

Background

Recruiting foreign-educated nurses (FENs) is a strategy to reduce staffing shortages of registered nurses (RNs) practicing in long-term care (LTC) in the United States. However, little is known about how FENs compare to U.S.-educated nurses (USENs) in their innate abilities and skills, also known as human capital.

Purpose

To compare human capital among FENs and USENs practicing in LTC.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used data from the 2018 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses to compare human capital scores between FENs and USENs. Human capital scores consisting of highest nursing qualification, skill-based certifications, number of state licensures, years of experience, multi-state employment, and multilingual ability were constructed and compared using analysis of covariance. Covariates were race, ethnicity, marriage/partnership, adults at home, children at home, direct patient care, and practice scope.

Results

The sample included 1,887 RNs (92.8% USENs and 7.2% FENs). Most RNs were female (92.3%), were aged ≥50 years (56.4%), were non-Hispanic White (78.3%), were married/partnered (68.0%), provided direct care (44%), and had full practice scope (71.7%). FENs versus USENs had a higher proportion reporting full scope of practice (80.7% vs. 71.0%, p = .0155). The mean human capital score for the total sample was 9.8 ± 1.3. Human capital scores were higher among FENs (M = 11.3, SD = 1.2) than USENs (M = 9.6, SD = 1.3, p < .0001).

Conclusion

FENs bring a higher level of human capital to LTC settings, which suggests that they have an increased capacity to provide the needed person-centered care to positively impact care quality and improve outcomes in LTC.

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
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
50
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Nursing Regulation (JNR), the official journal of the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN®), is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, academic and professional journal. It publishes scholarly articles that advance the science of nursing regulation, promote the mission and vision of NCSBN, and enhance communication and collaboration among nurse regulators, educators, practitioners, and the scientific community. The journal supports evidence-based regulation, addresses issues related to patient safety, and highlights current nursing regulatory issues, programs, and projects in both the United States and the international community. In publishing JNR, NCSBN''s goal is to develop and share knowledge related to nursing and other healthcare regulation across continents and to promote a greater awareness of regulatory issues among all nurses.
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board Errata Highlights of the Nurse Licensure Compact Survey Findings: Nurses’ Needs, Experiences, and Views Ethical Decision-Making Among Nurses Participating in Social Media: A Grounded Theory Study
×
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