Instrument Measures Nurse Practice
In a hospital or any medical care setting, nurses make up the majority of the environment, and are the backbone of facilitating patient care between physicians. However, between meeting the demands of the patients and following through doctors' orders, the roles nurses play are a high-stressed one, which influences on his or her overall well-being. The purpose of this paper is to display the findings from a study led by Pisanti (2008) regarding the relationship between nurses and their abilities to cope with environmental demands with the use of the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses (OCSE-N) Scale.
In order to gain a better understanding about the investigation, it is significant to comprehend about the foundation on which the study was based on, which is the Lazarus cognitive-medication theory of stress and Bandura's social cognitive theory. The former is about certain cognitive appraisals regarding one's work provokes stress and other negative notions for a person within his or her work environment. Cognitive appraisals can be primary or secondary. Primary appraisal is categorized as one's motivation and "personal relevance of a stressful situation" (Pisanti, 2008), or the length he or she is willing to go in order to attain one's objective. Secondary appraisal is the evaluation of coping methods and outcomes in terms of who is responsible for the circumstance, future expectancy or possibility of change, problem-focused coping or choices to impact the situation, and emotion-focused coping, which is the capability to emotionally adjust to the situation. The repercussions of the former appraisal are harm that has taken place, threat or the chance of future damage, and challenge, which is the probability for growth and progress. The consequences of the latter appraisal come from the coping tactics adopted to manage internal and/or external necessities. The latter cognitive theory is about the validity of self-efficacy beliefs. Coping self-efficacy or CSE beliefs is "someone's self-appraisals of their ability to cope with environmental demands may influence their reaction to stress and its outcomes" (Pisanti, 2008). It has been shown that the stronger one's self-efficacy, the greater the efforts the individual places in what he or she does, which differs depending on the venture or situation.
The research led by Pisanti used the premise of the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses (OCSE-N) Scale. The instrument development was for item generation, and validity and reliability testing. In conducting item generation, the sixty-two nurses who were interviewed were from two hospitals, and were part of another study. They were asked questions pertaining to their work life as nurses. Sampling was done throughout various departments, from emergency to surgical. 82% of the participants were female with an average age of forty years old. Open-ended interviews were administered to attain information regarding what were identified as stressors by nurses. Nurses were also asked what was their central predicament and obstacle they faced at work. In the end, nine occupational stressors were selected by eliminating identical responses and grouping together similar answers, and they were analyzed by eleven health professionals. The aforementioned stressful situations determined by nurses were difficulties with patients, relational difficulties with their supervisor, and insufficiently defined procedures. In addition, certain stressors were relational difficulties with a patient's relatives, difficulties in deciding how to do the work, and physical tiredness. Furthermore, nurses felt stressful when doing a lot of tasks simultaneously, relational difficulties with colleagues, and relational difficulties with other healthcare workers, like doctors. The validity and reliability testing was accomplished through various methods. Internal rationalization was done by calculating Conrach while the assessment for validity was done by paralleling dimensions of OSCE-N with burnout and coping tactics.
The team led by Pisanti corresponded with the Umbria and Lazio Regional Department of Health Care, and chose nine hospitals to participate in the investigation. Although 2186 nurses were selected at random, 1405 nurses consented to participate in the experiment. At first, they were approached...
Problem 12-34-1. Gross margin is calculated as gross profit / revenue. Product a Product B Product C Product D Gross Margin 12,000 / 32,000 = 37.5% 17,600 / 88,000 = 20% 56,000 / 280,000 = 20% 63,000 / 144,000 = 43.75% The product that is the most profitable is Product D. 2. The best way to start this question is to figure out the price and COGS per unit for each product. For Product a, the price was $32,000 / 2900
33% 400000 53.33% 480000 53.33% FM 125,000 125,000 125,000 FSA 25,000 25,000 25,000 Net Income 170,000 28.33% 250,000 33.33% 330,000 36.67% 2. The manager's tabulation is incorrect because the manager has set $2 as the fixed cost per unit. This is only true at the 200,000 unit level. At the other levels, the fixed cost per unit will be lower, as fixed costs do not increase with production volume. 6-47. 1. In order to make this assessment, Dana needs to calculate which method is cheaper. The accounting for producing the parts
So for the 70,000 units completed in July: (70,000)(15 + 10.65) = $1,795,500 2. The ending works in progress is 20,000. The total cost should be (20,000)(25.65) = 513,000 Note: These figures represent the total cost of the goods, not the total cost in July of the goods. The question is worded a little bit funny so I wasn't sure which one it was intended to be. Problem 14-21. Problem 14-21 1 2 3 4 DM Inv, 2010 8 8 5 2 Purchased 5 9 10 8 Used 7 11 7 3 DM Inv,
b) 1) ($20-$5) = $15; $1,200,000 / 15 = 80,000 units 2) if the company wants to sell just 70,000 units, then the price needs to be calculated again using the same formula as was used above: 70,000P -- (70,000*5) -- 1,200,000 = 0 70,000P = 1,550,000 P = $22.15 c) 1) This question is a bit silly. The formula would have one variable, x, to represent both the old and new sides: 19x -- 5x
The passenger miles would be (1,500,000 * 1.1) = 1,650,000. The revenue per passenger mile would be $0.20 -- (.08*.2) = $0.184 So the actual revenue was (.184)*(1,650,000) = $303,600. Now we can calculate Flex for Actual Level, the third column. This is based on the flex budget figures, which were $0.20 in revenue per passenger mile. Variable expenses were 195,000 / 1,500, 000 = $0.13 per passenger mile in the
4) Consider a firm that has just built a plant, which cost $20,000. Each worker earns $5.00 per hour. a) Based on this information, fill in the table below. Number of Worker Hours Output Marginal Product Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Cost Marginal Cost Average Variable Cost Average Total Cost 0 0 20,000 50 8 20000 20,250 5 5 10 20000 20,500 5 5 8 20000 20,750 5 5 6 20000 21,000 5 5 4 20000 21,250 5 5 85 1900 2 20000 21,500 5 5 71.67 1950 1 20000 21,750 5 5 62.14 b) In the example above, what price must the firm receive in order to keep producing in the short run? The price the firm must receive in the short run is the price that covers the variable cost, so the firm
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now