AIMS: This paper aims to provide a critical appraisal of an approach to the management and organization of nursing work known as shared governance (SG). BACKGROUND: This approach has its origins in the USA, where, during the past 20 years it has become increasingly influential. The advocates of SG claim that it can, inter alia, improve recruitment and retention rates, boost morale, and help raise clinical skills. Little wonder that SG in now beginning to make significant inroads into the NHS. ORIGIN OF INFORMATION: However, a trawl through the extensive US literature, using printed and online (e.g. BIDS, CINHAL, MEDLINE, etc.) bibliographical sources, suggests that the claimed benefits of SG should be treated with caution. KEY ISSUES: Much of the existing published research appears to be both methodologically flawed and lacking in any critical edge. While many researchers and commentators appear only too willing to highlight what they see as the promise of SG, they shy away from exploring any potential pitfalls. One consequence of this is that many of the putative benefits SG is said to confer, may in fact be more apparent than real. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and nurse managers need to be apprised of and consider seriously, the possible cons as well as the potential pros of SG, if any promise it may have is to be realized.
AIMS: This paper aims to provide a critical appraisal of an approach to the management and organization of nursing work known as shared governance (SG). BACKGROUND: This approach has its origins in the USA, where, during the past 20 years it has become increasingly influential. The advocates of SG claim that it can, inter alia, improve recruitment and retention rates, boost morale, and help raise clinical skills. Little wonder that SG in now beginning to make significant inroads into the NHS. ORIGIN OF INFORMATION: However, a trawl through the extensive US literature, using printed and online (e.g. BIDS, CINHAL, MEDLINE, etc.) bibliographical sources, suggests that the claimed benefits of SG should be treated with caution. KEY ISSUES: Much of the existing published research appears to be both methodologically flawed and lacking in any critical edge. While many researchers and commentators appear only too willing to highlight what they see as the promise of SG, they shy away from exploring any potential pitfalls. One consequence of this is that many of the putative benefits SG is said to confer, may in fact be more apparent than real. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and nurse managers need to be apprised of and consider seriously, the possible cons as well as the potential pros of SG, if any promise it may have is to be realized.