Developing a Registered Nurse Performance Appraisal Tool

Abstract

Hospital mergers are common events, producing highly complex corporate structures that allow the member hospitals to position themselves more competitively in a managed-care environment. Associated with this growing merger trend is the practice of performance-based employee compensation that links both individual and team efforts directly with the business strategies of the newly formed system. A unique challenge of initiating performance-based compensation for nurses is defining and quantifying the important aspects of nursing practice so that differentiation between performance levels can be identified. When highly individualized nursing cultures meet to create a performance appraisal tool, this challenge is accentuated. The authors describe the development of a performance appraisal tool for registered nurses by a newly merged healthcare system.

Measurement of clinical nurse performance: Developing a tool including contextual items

“…Similar studies describing the development of a performance evaluation tool for registered nurses in a healthcare organization were presented by Springer et al, [39] Hader et al [40] and O'Hara et al [41] in addition to well known tools. The reliability scores of them were less than 0.90.…”

Przegląd narzędzi badawczych do oceny wydajności pracy pielęgniarek

“…The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the whole Registered Nurse Performance Appraisal Tool was 0.89, whereas for individual main criteria it ranged according to the sample: the criterion professional practice -0.87 (0.85); criterion leadership -0.83 (0.85); criterion education -0.79 (0.64) [24].…”

“…For the assessment of performance of nurses the Registered Nurse Performance Appraisal Tool was designed by R. Hader et al The tool consists of 33 main criteria ascribed to 3 major criteria [24]: 1) professional practice (12); 2) leadership (11); 3) education (5).…”

“…For the criterion education: 0 -does not satisfy (participates in less than 15 hours of continuous training annually); 1 -satisfies (participates in 15-25 hours of continuous training annually); 2 -exceeds (participates in more than 25 hours of continuous training annually). The scores obtained from all main criteria should then be divided by 33 (the total number of detailed criteria) [24].…”

“…The superiors evaluated their subordinates from the aspect of work performance twice. The subsequent study was carried out 1 month after the first study [24].…”