Nursing Violence Quantitative Article Critique

Nursing violence is still rampant amid the intensive prevention programs that seek to curb the vice. The main argument of this article is nurses’ exposure to workplace violence. The paper is a comprehensive quantitative research about the main argument. The literature covering nursing violence is insufficient. Therefore, my point of view is that, it is imperative to carry out a substantial research. Literatures on nursing violence are qualitative in nature, having a limited scope.

The introductory argument from the article seems to consider the violence experienced by nurses alone. The research article failed to consider the possibility of the nurses or medical staff perpetrating any sort of violence to the patient. There are reported instances implicating the nurses using insensitive and rude comments when answering the patients. The quantitative research advocated breaking down the types of the violence according to the setting, source of violence and the region. The research team believed that this approach will help to integrate the findings of the meta-analysis. While each of these aspects may give useful information, there is no substantial evidence on their efficacy. Thus, integration cannot be achieved given that the materials used are qualitative in nature. Materials written in English-language were used when conducting the research; this consideration might have limited the sample space.

The methodology of the research followed the standard procedure for identifying the source articles. For instance, the four steps outlined in the method introduced the crucial techniques that succinctly defined the credibility of the materials and the databases. As such, peer-reviewed scholarly articles were used in the research.

The findings of the reports indicated that 36.4% of nurses claimed to have had physical abuse while the lowest number were concerned about the bullying in the workplace. Bullying had the lowest sample space of 10 when compared to physical violence which had a sample of 95. An excellent analysis of these perspectives is only possible if the sample space is the same.

The accumulated percentage did not show any direct correlation between the sample space and the number of the nurses. For instance, sexual harassment had a sample of 33 but it recorded the lowest percentage. Bullying statistics, which were obtained using the smallest sample, registered a slightly higher rate. Therefore, the difference in the sample space might have propagated its effect throughout the entire analysis.

The violence prevention programs that have been put in place are geared towards preventing physical abuse in most cases. It is outrageous to rely on the finding of current research when formulating such policies. The information is biased in nature due to the flawed process followed when establishing the results of the qualitative research. Non-physical violence and general assault recorded a higher percentage of over 50.

To break down the types of the violence further, the timeframe component focuses its evaluation mechanism on the nurses’ career, past one year period and six month’s deadline. It is outright wrong to conclude the findings basing on timeframe argument. Most patients, who are the key perpetrators of the violence hardly stay in the hospital for more that one year. Physical assault in the career period had a range of 0.5 to 100. The same kind of violence observed in the yearly category had a range of between 3 and 84.

A more comprehensive report, based on the setting perspective, was able to be compiled. The nursing fraternity recorded a significant physical violence in both geriatric and emergency units. These two settings deal with patients who are suffering from complicated physical or mental illnesses and at times they might get frustrated. The patients in such situation are mostly emotional. Therefore, they are the primary perpetrators of physical violence. Geriatric unit recorded the lowest percentage of non-physical abuse. To improve on the reliability of the findings based on the setting aspect, the sample space should be increased. The limited number of nurses interviewed affected some of the conclusions. For instance, in the emergency department, cases of bullying, sexual harassment, injury and general violence could not be studied due to the limited sample.

In the article, only four limiting factors were identified. Another potential limitation of this quantitative research is that gender was not put into considered. The report generally categorized patients as the main perpetrators of the violence. It would have been good enough to cord the violence as per the gender. Also, the report considered the horizontal relation within the nursing fraternity. It is appropriate to consider the vertical relationship between the nurses and the hospital management.

The primary sources used in the study failed to provide a sufficient sample space. However, in order to adequately address the issue associated with horizontal abuse, the report should redirect its focus on hospital’s structural organization and the nature of power circuits within the organization. Therefore, hospital management should consider altering some of the deleterious clinical practices. Violence prevention programs should be geared towards curbing all types of nursing violence, not physical abuse alone.

Reference

Spector, P., Zhou, Z., & Che, X. (2014). Nurse Exposure to Physical and Non-Physical Violence, Bullying, and Sexual Harassment: A Quantitative Review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(1), 72-84.