Location
Virtual Conference
Start Date
24-6-2022 12:20 PM
End Date
24-6-2022 1:30 PM
Keywords:
texas; california; plcmmc; washington; spokane
Description
Background: Magnet® status is a highly sought-after award validating a healthcare organization’s commitment to a sustainable nursing culture of excellence. One requirement includes having nurses conduct a minimum of three research studies as principal investigators within each 48-month review period. Additionally, research dissemination activities such as publication of study findings are required. Because research skills are not taught in traditional prelicensure nursing programs, Magnet® research requirements have incentivized healthcare organizations in pursuit of designation to strengthen research infrastructure.
Purpose: To characterize relationships between a nurse research mentor, Magnet® designation, and nursing research-related resources in a 53-hospital health system.
Approach: Infrastructure and resources to support nurse research activities in a large health system spanning 7 states were assessed. Research leads from each hospital were invited 2021 to complete the valid and reliable Hospital-Based Nursing Research Characteristics (HBNRC) survey through REDCAP between June 2021 – October. The survey included 19 demographic items, and three subscales (hospital research infrastructure [13 items], research culture [17 items], building a nursing research program [52 items]). Each subscale item ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (always), which were summed and averaged to calculate subscale scores (higher scores indicate more research resources). T-tests determined differences in continuous variables and chi-square in categorical variables when comparing hospitals with versus without a research mentor.
Results: Thirty-one surveys were returned, characterizing 39 hospitals (73.6% response rate). Overall, research leads rated the “developing a research program” subscale as the lowest (m = 1.9) and the “hospital culture” subscale as the highest (m = 2.4). The lowest-scored items on the HBNRC reflected inadequate availability of statistical software to analyze data and resources to assist with data collection for hospitals, though hospitals with mentors reported significantly higher scores (m = 1.7, 2.3) than those without, respectively (m = 1.3, 1.4, p < 0.05). The highest-scoring item reflected that “often” (m = 3.3), nurses are encouraged to use evidence to identify patient care problems among hospitals both with and without a formal mentor. In all, 23 hospitals (59%) reported having an RN mentor for engaging nurses in research activities, representing a total of 10 unique nurses. Hospitals with a formal mentor reported more research resources (m = 2.5) compared to those without (m = 1.8, p < 0.001). Hospitals with an RN research mentor were significantly more likely to have achieved Magnet® designation, had been conducting nurse research for significantly more years, reported more research studies, and had significantly more peer-reviewed publications with a nurse author compared to hospitals without a mentor (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Our findings align with previously reported research supporting a relationship between mentoring nurses in research activities and increased nurse engagement in research. However, future work is needed to investigate relationships research mentor characteristics and nursing self-efficacy in conducting clinical inquiry projects.
Implications for practice: Having a research mentor is an invaluable resource for hospitals looking to achieve magnet status to support successful nursing engagement in research activities.
Recommended Citation
Saul, Trisha; Bigand, Teresa; Sperry, Marietta; Doyle, Carrie; Roney, Jamie; and Mendelson, Sherri, "Podium Presentation: Influence of a Formal Mentor on Hospital-based Nurse Research Resources and Outcomes across Providence Health System" (2022). 2022 Providence Nurse Research Conference. 14.
https://digitalcommons.providence.org/prov_rn_conf_22/2022/day1/14
Included in
Podium Presentation: Influence of a Formal Mentor on Hospital-based Nurse Research Resources and Outcomes across Providence Health System
Virtual Conference
Background: Magnet® status is a highly sought-after award validating a healthcare organization’s commitment to a sustainable nursing culture of excellence. One requirement includes having nurses conduct a minimum of three research studies as principal investigators within each 48-month review period. Additionally, research dissemination activities such as publication of study findings are required. Because research skills are not taught in traditional prelicensure nursing programs, Magnet® research requirements have incentivized healthcare organizations in pursuit of designation to strengthen research infrastructure.
Purpose: To characterize relationships between a nurse research mentor, Magnet® designation, and nursing research-related resources in a 53-hospital health system.
Approach: Infrastructure and resources to support nurse research activities in a large health system spanning 7 states were assessed. Research leads from each hospital were invited 2021 to complete the valid and reliable Hospital-Based Nursing Research Characteristics (HBNRC) survey through REDCAP between June 2021 – October. The survey included 19 demographic items, and three subscales (hospital research infrastructure [13 items], research culture [17 items], building a nursing research program [52 items]). Each subscale item ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (always), which were summed and averaged to calculate subscale scores (higher scores indicate more research resources). T-tests determined differences in continuous variables and chi-square in categorical variables when comparing hospitals with versus without a research mentor.
Results: Thirty-one surveys were returned, characterizing 39 hospitals (73.6% response rate). Overall, research leads rated the “developing a research program” subscale as the lowest (m = 1.9) and the “hospital culture” subscale as the highest (m = 2.4). The lowest-scored items on the HBNRC reflected inadequate availability of statistical software to analyze data and resources to assist with data collection for hospitals, though hospitals with mentors reported significantly higher scores (m = 1.7, 2.3) than those without, respectively (m = 1.3, 1.4, p < 0.05). The highest-scoring item reflected that “often” (m = 3.3), nurses are encouraged to use evidence to identify patient care problems among hospitals both with and without a formal mentor. In all, 23 hospitals (59%) reported having an RN mentor for engaging nurses in research activities, representing a total of 10 unique nurses. Hospitals with a formal mentor reported more research resources (m = 2.5) compared to those without (m = 1.8, p < 0.001). Hospitals with an RN research mentor were significantly more likely to have achieved Magnet® designation, had been conducting nurse research for significantly more years, reported more research studies, and had significantly more peer-reviewed publications with a nurse author compared to hospitals without a mentor (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Our findings align with previously reported research supporting a relationship between mentoring nurses in research activities and increased nurse engagement in research. However, future work is needed to investigate relationships research mentor characteristics and nursing self-efficacy in conducting clinical inquiry projects.
Implications for practice: Having a research mentor is an invaluable resource for hospitals looking to achieve magnet status to support successful nursing engagement in research activities.
