Determining Individual Workload Perceptions and Malpractice Tendencıes Among Operating Room Nurses

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 4, 348 - 354, 30.12.2020

Ayşegül Savcı Kevser Karacabay Saadet Çömez Selda Karaveli Çakır Nigar Çelik

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.628440

Cited By: 2

Öz

Objective: To determine the workload perceptions and malpractice tendency of nurses working in the operating room.
Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted with 92 operating room nurses from 3 provinces of Turkey. The data were analyzed by using the numbers, percentages, the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal Wallis test.
Results: The mean age of the nurses was 35.19±6.11; 50% of the nurses had operating room working duration of 1-5 years, and 78.3% of the nurses had weekly working hours more than 40 hours. A total of 33.7% of the nurses stated that they came across with one malpractice case. The mean “Individual Workload Perception Scale(IWPS)” score of the participants was 98.82±9.39, and the mean “Malpractice Tendency Scale(MTS)” score was 225.59±12.75. There was a statistically significant difference between the communication subscale mean scores of the participants on the MTS according to their time in the profession. There were statistically significant differences between the gender of the participants and the overall IWPS mean score, the managerial support subscale mean score, and the workload subscale score. Statistically significant differences were detected between the working time of the nurses and the managerial support subscale and the workload subscale scores. Significant differences were detected in the participants’ mean scores on the intention to stay at work subscale of the IWPS according to the operating room working time of the participants.
Conclusion: Teamwork and effective communication in the operating room are two critical factors in ensuring patient safety. Eventually, approaches to be developed to foresee and prevent malpractice in operating rooms may ensure a safe perioperative process. The job descriptions of the operating room nurses should be reviewed. Training should be planned to strengthen team communication. Patient safety culture should be expanded in the health care team through monitoring and work flow charts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Operating Room, Nurse, Malpractice, Workload

Kaynakça

• 1. Akın Korhan E, Dilemek H, Mercan S, Uzelli Yilmaz D. Determination of attitudes of nurses in medical errors and related factors. International Journal of Caring Sciences 2017; 10(2):794-801.
• 2. Aksoy N, & Polat C. Job Satisfaction and affecting factors of surgical unit nurses of three different hospitals in a province in mediterranean region. Koç Üniversitesi Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi 2013; 10(2):45-53.(in Turkish).
• 3. Nursing Personnel Convetion. In Employment and Conditions of Work and Life of Nursing Personnel, 63rd ILC session. Geneva: International Labour Organization (ILO), 1977 [January 10, 2019]. Available from: URL: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLE
• 4. Balanuye B. The effects of workloads of nurses whom work in surgical clinics on patient safety. Baskent University Health Science Institute, Master Thesis. 2014. (in Turkish).
• 5. Beverly A. Kirchner dealing with disruptive behavior in the perioperative setting. In: Watson DS, editor. Perioperative Safety. Mosby Elsevier; 2011. p.333-335. 6. Cebeci F, Gürsoy E, Tekin Gündüz S. Determining the level of tendency in malpractice among nurses. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2012; 15(3):188-196. (in Turkish).
• 7. Çiftçioğlu G, Tunç G, Güneş A, Değer V, Çiftçi S. Indiviual workload perceptions of health workers employed in hospitals. Journal of Health and Nursing Managament 2018; 1(5):1-9.
• 8. Cox KS, Teasley SL, Lacey SR, Sexton K, Carroll CA. Work environment perceptions of pediatric nurses. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 2007; 22(1):179-82.9. Cvetic E. Communication in the perioperative setting. AORN J 2011; 94:261-270. 10. Dikmen DY, Yorgun S, Yeşilçam N. Identification the level of tendency in malpractice among nurses. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing 2014; 32(1):44–56.11. Güleç D, İntepeler SŞ. Developing a scale of attitudes towards medical errors. Hemşirelikte Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dergisi 2013; 15(3):26-41. (in Turkish).
• 12. Güneş ÜY, Gürlek Ö, Sönmez M. Factors contributing to medication errors in Turkey: nurses’ perspectives. Journal of Nursing Management 2014; 22:295–303.
• 13. Akansel N. International and National Patient Safety. Yavuz van Giesbergen M, Kaymakçı Ş. editors. Operating Room Nursing. İzmir: Meta Edition; 2015. p.85-109.
• 14. Işık Andsoy I, Kar G, Öztürk Ö. A Study on trends to medical error for nurses. Journal of Health Science and Profession 2014; 1(1):17-27.
• 15. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO); Sentinel Event Statistics 2011 [January 2019]. Available from: http://www.jointcomission.org/assests/1/18/general_Information_1195-3Q2011.pdf.
• 16. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error— the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016; 353:i2139:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139.
• 17. Ministry of Health Circular of Health Employees Working Hours 2010 [January 2019]. Available from: https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR,11025/saglik-personeli-calisma-saatleri-201055.html.
• 18. Ministry of Health, Security Reporting System Statistics and Analysis Report 2016 [January 2019]. Available from: https://grs.saglik.gov.tr/BM/Reports/GRS2016Rapor_R1.pdf.
• 19. Mrayyan MT, Shishani K, Al-Faouri I. Rate, causes and reporting of medication errors in Jordan: Nurses’ perspectives. Journal of Nursing Management 2007; 15: 659-670.
• 20. Özata M, Altunkan H. Frequency of medical errors in hospitals, determination of medical error types and medical errors: Konya sample. Tıp Araştırmaları Dergisi 2010;8(2):100-11.(in Turkish).
• 21. Özyer Y. Workload Perception, work-related stress and medical error attitudes of nurses working in surgical clinics. Masters Program with Nursery Thesis. Ordu University Health Science Institute, 2016. (in Turkish).
• 22. Ozyurek P & Kilic İ. Validity and reliability study of Turkish form of the revised individual workload perception scale, 8th. congress EORNA Colossus of perioperative nursing. Abstract Book. Greece, 4-7 May, 2017; EPO37. 201-211.
• 23. Rubin JD, Janovic EV, Gulinello C. $20 million award to parents for removal of the wrong side of child’s brain. Healthcare Risk Management. AVR.2013;3-4.
• 24. Şahin ZA, & Özdemir FK. Examination of the tendency for nursing malpractice and affecting factors. Hemşirelikte Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dergisi 2015; 12(3):210-214. (in Turkish).
• 25. Sayed HA, Zayed M, El Qareh NM, Khafagya H, Helmya AH, Soliman M. Patient safety in the operating room at a governmental hospital. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2013; 88: 85-89.
• 26. Tan M, Polat H, Şahin ZA. Assessing perception of nurses regarding work environments. Journal of Performance and Quality in Health 2012;4:67-78.
• 27. Taşdemir N. Wrong person, region, procedure. Yavuz van Giesbergen M, Kaymakçı Ş, editors. Operating Room Nursing. Meta Edition. İzmir,2015: pp.161-164.
• 28. The Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN) Periop Briefing.2016;JuneVol 103 No 6 February,04,2018. Available from: URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(16)30223-X 29. Uğur E, Kara S, Yıldırım S, Akbal E. Errors that threaten patient safety in the operating room and the attitude of the health personnel. Turkish Journal of Neurosurgery 2011;21: 279. (in Turkish).
• 30. Watson DS. Perioperative safety. Mosby Elseiver.2011;pp.10-17.