| Literature DB >> 34811952 |
Abstract
AIM: This review aimed to examine and describe the published research on nursing home (NH) nurses' turnover intentions in their workplace.Entities:
Keywords: nurse; nursing homes; turnover intention
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34811952 PMCID: PMC8685779 DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nurs Open ISSN: 2054-1058
FIGURE 1Flow diagram for study selection (PRISMA)
Methodological description of the studies reviewed
| Methodological details | Park et al. ( | Kash et al. ( | Kash et al. ( | Filipova ( | Kuo et al. ( | Chen et al. ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research question presented | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Power analysis included | − | − | − | − | − | + |
| Recruitment reported | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Response rate % | 86.4 | 97.0 | 56.0 | 21.4 | 48.1 | * |
| Demographic of the sample presented | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Sample size | 258 | 1,016 | 572 | 656 | 173 | 186 |
| Development of the instrument described | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Reliability data of the instruments reported | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| Validity of the Instrument established | + | + | + | + | + | + |
+ = yes; − = no; * = No details available.
Summary of studies in the review
| No | Author (Year), Country | Sample and | Design | Factor analysed | Findings | Consider leaving NH | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Park et al. ( | 280 RNs from 258 NHs in Korea | Cross sectional |
Individual factor: marital status, religion, education level, job position, income, age of the RN, years of clinical experience, years of NH experience, work type, satisfaction with current facility, number of turnover experience, job stress, job satisfaction Organizational factor: facility type, number of RNs, number of residents |
Individual factor: single (marital status), age of the RN ↑, years of clinical experience ↓, satisfaction with current facility↑, number of turnover experience↓, job stress ↓, job satisfaction↑ => RN turnover intention ↓ Organizational factor: paid NH(facility type) => RN turnover intention ↓ | In 5‐pint Likert scale (with higher scores representing higher turnover intention), mean score was 3.12 | ||||
| 2 | Kash et al. ( |
1,016 DONs from 626 NHs in US + The 2003 Texas Nursing Facility Medicaid Cost Report +The 2003 Area Resource File for Texas | Cross sectional |
Individual factor: Years of education, Years worked at the facility, job satisfaction, perceptions of empowerment Certification in geriatrics or gerontology, pay) Organizational factor: Ownership type, Number of beds, Occupancy rate, RN HPRD, LVN turnover rate, CNA turnover rate, Case mix index, Proportion Medicare days, Proportion Medicaid days, Proportion private days, Reimbursement rate, |
Individual factor: Years of education ↓, job satisfaction ↑, perceptions of empowerment ↑, pay ↑ => DON turnover intention ↓ Organizational factor: Non‐profit (Ownership type), RN HPRD ↑, Proportion Medicaid days↓ => DON turnover intention ↓ |
In 5‐point Likert‐ scale and were recoded into a binary variable coded 1 if the respondent chose strongly agree, agree, or neutral as an answer. The dummy variable was coded 0 if the respondent answered with strongly disagree or disagree. mean score was 0.15 | ||||
| 3 | Kash et al. ( |
572 DONs from 572 NHs in US +2003 The Texas Nursing Facility Medicaid Cost Report +The 2003 Area Resource File for Texas | Cross sectional |
Individual factor: education level, years licensed, years of LTC employment, Years at current facility, Pay, Perception of regulatory stress, job satisfaction, perceptions of empowerment Organizational factor: ownership type, number of beds, Occupancy rate, professional staff ratio, agency staff ratio, reimbursement rate, case mix |
Individual factor: Job satisfaction ↑, pay↑, level of empowerment ↑, education level ↓ => DON turnover intention ↓ Organizational factor: non‐profit (ownership type) => DON turnover intention ↓ |
In 5‐point Likert‐ scale and were recoded into a binary variable coded 1 if the respondent chose strongly agree, agree, or neutral as an answer. The dummy variable was coded 0 if the respondent answered with strongly disagree or disagree. (1) turnover intention in next 12 months: mean score was 0.15 (2) turnover intention in next 24 months: mean score was 0.15 | ||||
| 4 | Filipova ( | 656 licensed nurses from 110 NHs in US | Cross sectional | Individual factor: perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, ethical climate | Individual factor: job satisfaction ↑, organizational commitment ↑ => nurse turnover intention ↓ | In 5‐point Likert‐ scale (with higher scores representing higher turnover intention), mean score was 2.6 | ||||
| 5 | Kuo et al. ( | 173 nurses 110 NHs in Taiwan | Cross sectional | Individual factor: work stress, job satisfaction | Individual factor: job satisfaction ↑ => nurse‐turnover intention ↓ |
In 5‐point Likert‐ scale, 4 items (with higher scores representing higher turnover intention), mean score was 10.01 | ||||
| 6 | Chen et al. ( | 186 licensed nurses (RN and LPN) from 25 NHs in Taiwan | Cross sectional | Individual factor: Intrinsic job satisfaction, Extrinsic job satisfaction, Job demand | Individual factor: Intrinsic job satisfaction↑, Extrinsic job satisfaction↑, Job demand ↑=> Nurse (RN and LPN) turnover intention ↓ | 12% of nurses were high turnover intention, 57% were middle turnover intention, 31% were low turnover intention | ||||
Abbreviations: DON, director of nursing; HPRD, hours per resident day; LPN, licensed practical nurse; LTC, long‐term care; LVN, licensed vocational nurse; NH, nursing home; RN, Registered Nurse.