Navegando por Palavras-chave "Health Institution Environment"

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Análise da percepção do ambiente de prática profissional dos enfermeiros que atuam em um hospital acreditado
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2021) Danno, Camila Hidemi [UNIFESP]; Bohomol, Elena [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo
    Objective: Evaluate the professional practice environment of nurses working in a hospital. Methods: type survey study, cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach, carried out in two stages, in a hospital in the state of São Paulo. The population consisted of 84 nurses in the first stage and 98 in the second stage, all nurses were invited to participate in the study, and the sample was selected for convenience. For data collection, an instrument consisting of two parts was applied, the first for professional characterization with 12 questions and the second comprised the Practice Environment Scale - PES Brazilian version, composed of 24 items distributed in five subscales. The first collect occurred between March and May 2019, was characterized as Group 1, and the second collect occurred in September 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, as Group 2. Data were analyzed by software R studio version 1.2 5001 and the level of significance adopted was p≤ 0.05. The instrument's internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Results: 55 (65.5%) nurses in Group 1 participated in the study, 83.6% of whom were women, 58.2% were married and 47.3% were between 30 and 39 years old; and 53 (54.1%) nurses in Group 2, where 83% were women, 54.7% married and 50.9% aged 30 to 39 years. Cronbach's alpha for the general instrument was 0.93 and 0.92, respectively, for the subscales it varied between 0.71 and 0.84 in Group 1 and between 0.77 and 0.87 in Group 2. The general mean practice of Environment Scale - PES Brazilian version was favorable, with averages of 3.1 and 3.3, respectively, with a significant difference (p = 0.04). All subscales showed favorable results, with emphasis on the subscale 1 “Participation of nurses in the discussion of hospital issues” with an average of 3.2 and 3.4 (p = 0.05), subscale 4 “Adequacy of the team and of resources” with an average of 2.8 and 3 (p = 0.04) and the subscale 5 “Positive work relationships between doctors and nurses” with an average of 3.1 and 3.3 (p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in subscale 2 "Nursing fundamentals focused on quality of care" with 3.2 and 3.4 (p = 0.27) and subscale 3 "Skill, leadership and support of nursing coordinators / supervisors to nurses / nursing staff” with 3.3 and 3.4 (p = 0.07). Conclusion: The professional practice environment of nurses was considered as favorable by both groups, with favorable rating in the five subscales. There was a better favorability of the environment during the pandemic. Even presenting a linearity in the assessments before and during the pandemic. The findings of this study show the importance of assessing the work environment for institutional adjustments in order to favor the development of nursing practice.