Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRoberts, Brigiten_US
dc.contributor.authorM. Eastwood, Glennen_US
dc.contributor.authorRaunow, Heikeen_US
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Belindaen_US
dc.contributor.authorRickard, Claireen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T12:57:58Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T12:57:58Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.date.modified2011-08-16T07:29:13Z
dc.identifier.issn09643397en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.iccn.2011.02.002en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/40064
dc.description.abstractBackground Many intensive care units (ICU) research coordinators (RCs) work in isolation with limited access to professional development and peer support. Aims (1) To map professional development priorities and "best" and "worst" aspects of the ICU RC role. (2) To compare results of "best" and "worst" aspects to a similar 2004 study. Methods On-line study conducted from July 2009 to October 2009. Respondents scored 26 individual items related to professional development and described in free text "best" and "worst" aspects. Results 56 RCs participated. Maintaining high ethical standards for the research participant was ranked the highest priority. RCs had considerable interest but less confidence in completing own research. The "best" and "worst" aspects exposed three thematic clusters: work conditions; work environment; work role. Most often recorded notations were Work Conditions for "best" and work environment for "worst" aspects. Conclusion RCs judge adherence to international research guidelines the most important pre-requisite for the position and wish involvement in research design and dissemination. With little change from 2004, inadequate peer support and unsatisfactory employment conditions constituted most of the "worst" aspects. Autonomy and working in the ICU team are the "best" aspects of the role in addition to the intellectual stimulation of research.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.format.extent104637 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.publisher.placeNetherlandsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom129en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto137en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalIntensive and Critical Care Nursingen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume27en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care)en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode111003en_US
dc.titleThe intensive care research coordinator position in Australia and New Zealand: Self-perception of professional development priorities and "best" and "worst" aspects of the position. A cross-sectional web-based studyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2011 Elsevier. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_AU
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record