| Title |
Conflicts and conflict regulation in hospices: nurses’ perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-012-9459-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Walker, Christof Breitsameter |
| Abstract |
The present article considers conflicts and conflict regulation in hospices. The authors carried out a qualitative study in three hospices in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, to explore how conflicts arise and how conflict regulation proceeds. Hospice nurses should act according to a set of ethical codes, to mission statements of the institution and to professional standards of care. In practice the subjective interpretations of codes and/or models concerning questions of care are causes of conflicts among nurses, with doctors, patients and family members. The management has two choices to react to these conflicts. It can either tolerate the conflicts, as long as they do not disturb the daily routine. Or it can increase the degree of organisation by integrating the different viewpoints into its own program and/or by restructuring its organisational units. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nigeria | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 20% |
| Librarian | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 20% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,675,320
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#450
of 589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,019
of 280,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.