2007
DOI: 10.1002/gps.1888
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Practice style in the nursing home: dimensions for assessment and quality improvement

Abstract: After systematically reviewing the observations and findings it was concluded that enhancing practice styles in the nursing home requires knowledge, communication, flexibility, understanding, and genuine concern on the part of nursing home staff and administrators at all levels. We acknowledge and understand, of course, that changing practice styles in nursing homes is a difficult and time-consuming process.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
71
0
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
4
71
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…() drew their conclusions merely on two units for people having severe memory disorders. More recently, supporting these earlier findings, the provision of individualized care has been found to be associated with a good working environment (Cohen‐Mansfield & Parpura‐Gill , Suhonen et al . ).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…() drew their conclusions merely on two units for people having severe memory disorders. More recently, supporting these earlier findings, the provision of individualized care has been found to be associated with a good working environment (Cohen‐Mansfield & Parpura‐Gill , Suhonen et al . ).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…This is aligned with previous evidence that individualised care is associated with nurses’ autonomy at work (Tellis‐Nayak 2007, Caspar & O’Rourke 2008, Suhonen et al. 2010c), care performance, organisational policies, organisation of nursing work and the working environment (Cohen‐Mansfield & Parpura‐Gill 2008, Suhonen et al. 2009).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…11 Ratings of these items used a scale from 1 (terrible) to 7 (outstanding). A measure of overall quality of care was also computed by averaging these 4 ratings.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%