In 2005, a group of medical staff among them Anna Hayburst published a nursing journal entitled, “Work Environmental Factors And Retention of Nurses.” the aim of publishing the article was to undertake a closer look at the factors which affected retention of the nursing work force in the US (Hayburst, 2005). Going through their article, it is clear that retention of medical staff is a vital factor that goes a long way in improving service provision and more so, reducing the cost of recruitment (Stewart, 2006). In the article, the authors singles out the fact that the shortage of professional nurses continues to be the most complex factor in the health industry, particularly in 21st century. Furthermore, the author notes the areas that have been hit by the shortages and need to be urgently addressed include the specialized areas like the critical care unit, preoperative areas, labor, and the delivery units.
The article notes that the problem and shortage of nurses is not only in the US but rather across the globe. The author Hayburst (2005) highlights the cost of recruiting qualified nurses is increasing every time with a special focus on the cost of replacing a surgical nurse being $42000 while that of replacing a specialist nurse is $64000. It is also important to understand that the retention of nurses has always been related to job satisfaction.
The research question that was identified by the researcher was “what are environmental factors that influence retention of nurses?”
The article identifies other authors who have undertaken similar research. They used the articles and books of others to check on the direction of the research. In other articles, the author identifies that there are other factors that influences nurses’ decision to remain or leave an organization and look for greener pastures (Stewart, 2006). In one of the articles, the author identified that at least 56% of the nurses were in a plan to leave their current jobs and seek other stress free jobs that had little demands compared to what they were going through in the nursing sector. In the same article, nurses were the ones who expressed much frustration and dissatisfaction and this was due to the heavy patient loads, non supportive management experience, and negative peer attitudes. Furthermore, the articles addressed the fact that the work environment had a direct influence on retention of experienced nursing staffs. The literature review has played a great role in this article, since it has assisted the author to link their research to issues that other researchers have found out and are related to the research. In the long run, this gives the research direction (Hayburst, 2005).
Analysis of the theoretical framework
The article assumes the fact that all the nurses are working under the same conditions and that most of the nurses are in the process of looking for better paying jobs. Moreover, the article addresses the fact that most nurses are working under unfavorable conditions (Stewart, 2006).
The appropriateness of the research objectives
The articles identified various research objectives and factors that influenced the retention of the nurses in various organizations. The article identified peer cohesion, supervision support, autonomy, and work pressure as some of the factors that influence retention ability.
Discussion and critique of the research variables
In the article, the author identified dependent variables that assisted in identifying the direction of the study. Work environment was identified as one of the variables that were used to identify the relation between retention of work force and the environment that is present at the work (Stewart, 2006). Moreover, another study variable that the article identified was peer cohesion, supervisor support, and autonomy and work pressure.
Analysis of the research design
In the article, the author adopted quantitative research methodology. Correlation design was adopted in order to help compare the factors that influence retention of nurses and even the factors that may influence stay decision.
Analysis of the sample and setting
The sample of the research was drawn from nurses who voluntarily accepted the process. The nurses were drawn from various units that included managers, staff development nurses, and clinical nurses (Melosh, 2006). The sample was drawn from a population of 692 respontants who were given questionnaires. Unfortunately, only 272 of the questionnaire were returned.
Critique of the measurement instrument
The study adopted the use of questioners in order to obtain information from the sampled population. With the use of the questionnaire, a total of 692 questionnaires were send to the sampled population. However, only 272 respondents were received the rest opted not to return the questionnaires. The instrument that was adopted did not cover the entire population (Melosh, 2006).
Critique of the procedures for data collection
The article identifies questionnaires as the mode of data collection. Identical questionnaires were sent to the various nurses and response was collected from them. However, the mode of data collection does not give a clear representation of the population.
Critique of statistical analysis and researcher’s interpretation
Under the analysis, a total of 272 respondents were received. This was 39% of the population. However, the majority of the respondents were women who represented 96% of the respondents .Out of this population, majority of them were aged 44-49 years and out of this; only 66% had worked for more than 10 yrs as nurses. Hence, this shows that the data was not all inclusive (Stewart, 2006).
Melosh, B. (2006). The Physician’s hand work culture and conflict in American nursing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Stewart, I . M. (2006). Editorial. The education of nurses: Historical foundation and modern trends. New York: Macmillan.