The intensive care research coordinator position in Australia and New Zealand: Self-perception of professional development priorities and "best" and "worst" aspects of the position. A cross-sectional web-based study

File Size Format
69924_1.pdf 102Kb Adobe PDF View
Title The intensive care research coordinator position in Australia and New Zealand: Self-perception of professional development priorities and "best" and "worst" aspects of the position. A cross-sectional web-based study
Author Roberts, Brigit; Eastwood, Glenn M.; Raunow, Heike; Howe, Belinda; Rickard, Claire
Journal Name Intensive and Critical Care Nursing
Year Published 2011
Place of publication Netherlands
Publisher Elsevier
Abstract Background Many intensive care units (ICU) research coordinators (RCs) work in isolation with limited access to professional development and peer support. Aims (1) To map professional development priorities and “best” and “worst” aspects of the ICU RC role. (2) To compare results of “best” and “worst” aspects to a similar 2004 study. Methods On-line study conducted from July 2009 to October 2009. Respondents scored 26 individual items related to professional development and described in free text “best” and “worst” aspects. Results 56 RCs participated. Maintaining high ethical standards for the research participant was ranked the highest priority. RCs had considerable interest but less confidence in completing own research. The “best” and “worst” aspects exposed three thematic clusters: work conditions; work environment; work role. Most often recorded notations were Work Conditions for “best” and work environment for “worst” aspects. Conclusion RCs judge adherence to international research guidelines the most important pre-requisite for the position and wish involvement in research design and dissemination. With little change from 2004, inadequate peer support and unsatisfactory employment conditions constituted most of the “worst” aspects. Autonomy and working in the ICU team are the “best” aspects of the role in addition to the intellectual stimulation of research.
Peer Reviewed Yes
Published Yes
Alternative URI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2011.02.002
Copyright Statement Copyright 2011 Elsevier. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
Volume 27
Issue Number 3
Page from 129
Page to 137
ISSN 0964-3397
Date Accessioned 2011-05-03
Language en_AU
Research Centre Griffith Health Institute; Centre for Health Practice Innovation
Faculty Griffith Health Faculty
Subject Clinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care)
URI http://hdl.handle.net/10072/40064
Publication Type Journal Articles (Refereed Article)
Publication Type Code c1

Show simple item record

Griffith University copyright notice