Author
Listed:
- Lorna Chesterton
- Josie Tetley
- Nigel Cox
- Kirsten Jack
Abstract
Aims and Objectives This paper presents findings from a hermeneutical study which sought to explore how registered nurses experienced and perceived their professional accountability in clinical settings. Background Professional accountability encompasses the ideals and standards of nursing practice. Nurses are accountable for their actions under civil, criminal and contract law to their; employing organisation, their regulatory body and the patients for whom they care. Design This paper reports on a Heideggerian hermeneutical study involving seven registered nurses, working in clinical practice in the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. Methods The study adopted purposive sampling, collecting data by means of in‐depth interviews. Data were analysed using the hermeneutic circle. COREQ checklist was used as a reporting guideline for this study. Results The findings suggest that professional accountability in nursing practice is a complex phenomenon, which can be compromised by many factors which are historically, socially or politically driven Participants experienced challenges through a lack of resources and poor managerial support, which compromised their ability to deliver high‐quality patient care. However, collegiality strongly impacted upon resilience and positively influenced their well‐being. Relevance to clinical practice Amid the challenges of the clinical workplace, a positive workplace culture with visible managerial support is a fundamental requirement in supporting professional accountability, development and retention of nurses. Findings highlight the view that leadership should be seen as a collective responsibility, which empowers staff to positively change the practice environment.
Suggested Citation
Lorna Chesterton & Josie Tetley & Nigel Cox & Kirsten Jack, 2021.
"A hermeneutical study of professional accountability in nursing,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 188-199, January.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:30:y:2021:i:1-2:p:188-199
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15539
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:30:y:2021:i:1-2:p:188-199. 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.