Author
Listed:
- Nicola Gillin
- Ruth Taylor
- Susan Walker
Abstract
Aims and objectives To critically examine the conceptual, methodological and validity issues with the “caring cultures” construct. Background Post the Francis Report, “caring cultures” and alternative terminology such as “culture/s of care/caring/compassionate care” have gained prominence in the literature, especially within a UK policy context. However, in order to understand the value these “caring cultures” hold in terms of clinical practice, the concept itself first needs to be understood. Design A discussion and critical examination of the concept of “caring cultures” and associated terminology. Methods Grey literature, database, library and reference list searches were conducted. Results It is implied that “caring cultures” influence patient care. However, evidence which verifies this assertion is limited. In this article, the concept of “caring cultures” is deconstructed and its validity explored. An alternative to “caring cultures” is proposed in terms of research, whereby the concept of culture is instead explored in detail, on a microsystem level, using appropriate methodology. Conclusion The concept of “caring cultures”, although attractive in terms of its apparent simplicity, is not considered the most useful nor appropriate phrases in terms of advancing research. Instead, research which examines the established concept of “culture” in relation to outcomes such as patient care, doing so with an appropriate methodology, is viewed as a more suitable alternative. Relevance to clinical practice Clarifying concepts and terminology relating to “caring cultures” is essential for research to progress and the impact of culture on clinical practice to be better understood.
Suggested Citation
Nicola Gillin & Ruth Taylor & Susan Walker, 2017.
"Exploring the concept of “caring cultures” : A critical examination of the conceptual, methodological and validity issues with the “caring cultures” construct,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 5216-5223, December.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:5216-5223
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13858
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:5216-5223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.