Good Example Of Research Paper On Magnet Status/Recognition

An initiative by the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), Magnet is a recognition program that identifies healthcare societies that show outstanding patient care. Further, the program seeks to recognize important inventions in the nursing profession and practice. The program is believed to be the leading source of successful nursing practice and strategies worldwide, consumers and patients depend on magnet’s decision to know the healthcare with the high credited nursing for patient care.
A large number of commissioners, individuals, both governmental and non-governmental organizations have stressed the importance of improving clinical working environments. It is believed that healthy working environments, positive influence nurse retention, work satisfaction, propagate quality of life, and at the same time minimize stress in the profession. Further, healthy working environments if well managed will also influence good outcomes such as lack of adversative occasions. Kramer, Maguire & Brewer, conducted the research to test the theory. Their concern was if what is said is true about nurses working in magnet hospitals testing their productivity rate and how healthy their working environment is defined (2011). Grant, Colello, Riehle & Dende, who evaluated the practice environment and the success story of the new magnet model generation in the nursing profession (2010), have conducted additional researchers on the same. Further, Sables-Baus & Zuk, addressed the same issue only that they provided evidence of the use of the Model as the framework basing their research on the role played by clinical nurse specialists (2012). Further, in their research, they were to check how these nurses influence change in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Walker, Middleton, Rolley, and Duff went further and looked at what healthcare has to do in order to attain a magnet model recognition (2010). Hickey, Unruh, Newhouse, Koithan, Johantgen, Hughes, Haller, and Lundmark examined the importance of credentialing to a health care unit (2014).
According to Hickel et al., credentialing is a term used to mean the establishment of necessities and evaluation of people or organizations against specific requirements so that a desired status is achieved (2014). Meaning, credentialing is the certification of nurses and organizations that provide healthcare services, as well as institutions providing nursing education. Their argument is that it is difficult to measure the effects of credentialing in the assumptions that it leads to professionalism. However, they proposed a model that handles both the credentials and the standards in the desire to affect and create a positive outcome in health care (Hickey et al., 2014).
Hickel and his team believed that the country concentrated on increasing the affordability of care, created insurance reforms, and improved quality of the efforts to improve the care. Further, their assumption was that the mannerism of employment to personnel in the field was to change as the reforms continued. Additionally, they banked their hopes on the fact that the role of the standard translation to practicality means that credentialing created the readiness and capabilities that brought about quality care. As a result, individuals and originations credited assure people that these groups are meeting the given standards of health care. Further, they assure the simple facts such as their care is trusted and is of quality standards. Additionally, certification allows the public to define competent Practitioners from those who are not. In support of their argument, they indicated that licensing, certifying, and accrediting organizations and individuals mean that they have demonstrated mastery of skills and competency in their work. The statement can only be verified by completion of their respective degree program and having passed their board examinations.
The reasons as to why credentialing has a positive effect on the quality of care given to individuals and thus good outcomes is that, the practice creates the belief for excellent practice. Credited individuals and those expecting to be certified are compelled to have practice and deliver quality outcomes in order to attain recognition (Hickey et al., 2014). Secondly, credentialing will always standardize the practices granted to patients in the professional field, therefore variation in service delivery is minimized. As a result, the research champions a single credentialing body that serves the public’s interest. Lastly, certification serves as a tool to evaluate practice competency.
Organizations meeting the stated requirements defined by the ANCC’s Magnet Recognition program are seen to have better-practicing environment, nurses, and better outcomes (Hickey et al., 2014). Evidence collected show that there is an improvement in nurse education after credentialing was done to institutions that provide the service. In their research, they found out those individual credited nurses perform better than those who are not certified.
Their research was conducted at St Vincent’s Private Hospital in Sydney, Australia while the benchmark results were between Magnet and non-Magnet hospital data. Then a gap analysis was done to determine areas for improvement as necessary. The nurse unit managers and the educators were excluded from the research because of their small number (n=20) and (n=15). The researchers conducted the study using the survey monkey, which is an online software that provides a portal available to all nurses in the hospitals. Other hospital staff also had the privilege to access the survey by using their home computers. The researchers administered questionnaires, which comprised of practice environment scale. The questioner asked nurses whether they strongly agreed or disagreed if specific organizational characteristics existed in their present occupation by a 4-point Likert scale. Other questions in the paper were sex, age, highest qualification, nurse classification, registered nurse, employment length in terms of years and the employment status. All data collected was analyzed using SPSS software. At the end of the research, at least 384 nurses participated in the study, which was an 84% response rate. Two hundred and eighty-six were registered nurses, 16% clinical nurse, 4.1% nurses who had been enrolled, and the remaining 7.4% represented the assistance nurses. The findings settled that the subscales nurses rate the hospital as magnet-like. As a result, they look forward to submitting an appraisal by the surveys. From the results found, the hospital is the only healthcare facility that administers PES – NWI or PES – AUS organization, even before seeking Magnet recognition (Walker, Middleton, Rolley & Duff, 2010).
Kramer, Maguire and Brewer’s study aimed at describing the level to which the Magnet recognized hospital nurses confirm healthy work environment (2011). The study based its agreement on the background that when HWE (human work environment) differences are differentiated, bosses and directors are allowed to focus their energy where it is needed. The aim at this is that it aids the managers in improving nurse and patient outcomes. The research used twelve thousand, two hundred and thirty-three nurses who are experienced from seven hundred and seventeen clinical units in thirty-four magnet hospitals (Kramer, Maguire & Brewer, 2011). Researchers in this study used the Magnetism II unit as their level scores. They then grouped the units as Very Healthy Working Environment and the other group as working environments that need improving (VHWE and HWE respectively).
The findings of the study showed that at least 82% of the study clinical units confirmed VHWE or HWE existence. It was discovered that the most occurrences of HWE took place in individual hospitals. Further, nurses with Bachelor of Science qualifications scored more points than the rest in seven work processes (Kramer, Maguire & Brewer, 2011). Additionally, the researchers discovered that the working environment was directly proportional to the quality of care a patient receives. For that reason, they concluded that in the maintenance of HWE, collaboration, empowerment, and leadership should be a major consideration. The implications of this research were that the implementations of the buildings that promote inter and intra-disciplinary associations and decision-making will always influence the development of HWE (Kramer, Maguire & Brewer, 2011).
Grant, Colello, Riehle, and Dende, supported the Kramer’s group by conducting a research of their own. However, their aim was their aim to look at the relationship between the new Magnet Model and the influence it has on a practice change (2010). The scientists based their research on the background that magnet program is gaining international interests. In the recent years, magnet model has become not only an organization recognition tool, but also the main framework for the nursing profession as well as the future researchers (Grant et al., 2010). The researchers used magnet model to evaluate and identify the factors related to a practice change and further, the environment in which nurses’ use. Additionally, Grant and the group argued that HWE should be empowered to attain the best outcomes even though changes to practice are evident. The implications of this research for nursing management were that the model provides an excellent framework in which an agile and exceptional workforce is built on. Further, components of the new model can be used to predict and thus ensure organizational vitality (Grant et al., 2010).
Sables-Baus and Zuk Further cemented the importance of Magnet model with their research. First, they acknowledged the difficulties of implementing research into the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) because of the complex environment, which rapidly changes (2012). Further, the complexity of the implementation is also brought about by the fact that the goals in the field changed from simple child survival to the positive long-term neurodevelopment. The research background was on the basis that the nurses in this field often use research in conducting their roles. The study showed the role of CNS and their effects on NICU culture around infants with magnet model being the framework for change (Sables-Baus and Zuk, 2012).
In conclusion, it should be noted that magnet model has brought sanity and competency in the healthcare field. The model’s implication in the nursing field is very vital as a fact; it analyzes gaps in components of the relationships that are essential to HWE thus enabling commonality in hospital clinical units. Further, the Magnet Model reduces the tendency of different variations in the healthcare field.

References

Grant, B., Colello, S., Riehle, M., & Dende, D. (2010). An evaluation of the nursing practice environment and successful change management using the new generation Magnet Model. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(3), 326-331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01076.x
Hickey, J., Unruh, L., Newhouse, R., Koithan, M., Johantgen, M., & Hughes, R. et al. (2014). Credentialing: The need for a national research agenda. Nursing Outlook, 62(2), 119-127. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2013.10.011
KRAMER, M., MAGUIRE, P., & BREWER, B. (2011). Clinical nurses in Magnet hospitals confirm productive, healthy unit work environments. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(1), 5-17. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01211.x
Sables-Baus, S., & Zuk, J. (2012). An Exemplar for Evidence-Based Nursing Practice Using the Magnet® Model as the Framework for Change: Oral Feeding Practice in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 27(5), 577-582. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2011.10.008
Walker, K., Middleton, S., Rolley, J., & Duff, J. (2010). Nurses report a healthy culture: Results of the Practice Environment Scale (Australia) in an Australian hospital seeking Magnet recognition. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 16(6), 616-623. doi:10.1111/j.1440-172x.2010.01890.x