Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:01:10.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Work culture among healthcare personnel in a palliative medicine unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2012

Beate André ,
Endre Sjøvold ,
Toril Rannestad ,
Marte Holmemo  and
Gerd I. Ringdal
Beate André*
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Health Promotion and Resources, The Sør-Trøndelag University College and Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway Faculty of Nursing, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway
Endre Sjøvold
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Toril Rannestad
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Health Promotion and Resources, The Sør-Trøndelag University College and Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Marte Holmemo
Affiliation:
Human Resources Division, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Gerd I. Ringdal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Beate André, Faculty of Nursing, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Norway. E-mail: beate.andre@ntnu.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Understanding and assessing health care personnel's work culture in palliative care is important, as a conflict between “high tech” and “high touch” is present. Implementing necessary changes in behavior and procedures may imply a profound challenge, because of this conflict. The aim of this study was to explore the work culture at a palliative medicine unit (PMU).

Method:

Healthcare personnel (N = 26) at a PMU in Norway comprising physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and others filled in a questionnaire about their perception of the work culture at the unit. The Systematizing Person-Group Relations (SPGR) method was used for gathering data and for the analyses. This method applies six different dimensions representing different aspects of a work culture (Synergy, Withdrawal, Opposition, Dependence, Control, and Nurture) and each dimension has two vectors applied. The method seeks to explore which aspects dominate the particular work culture, identifying challenges, limitations, and opportunities. The findings were compared with a reference group of 347 ratings of well-functioning Norwegian organizations, named the “Norwegian Norm.”

Results:

The healthcare personnel working at the PMU had significantly higher scores than the “Norwegian Norm” in both vectors in the “Withdrawal” dimension and significant lower scores in both vectors in the “Synergy,” “Control,” and “Dependence” dimensions.

Significance of results:

Healthcare personnel at the PMU have a significantly different perception of their work culture than do staff in “well-functioning organizations” in several dimensions. The low score in the “Synergy” and “Control” dimensions indicate lack of engagement and constructive goal orientation behavior, and not being in a position to change their behavior. The conflict between “high tech” and “high touch” at a PMU seems to be an obstacle when implementing new procedures and alternative courses of action.

Keywords

Work culturePMUSPGR methodHealthcare personnel
Type
Original Articles
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 135 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.Google Scholar
André, B., Ringdal, G.I., Loge, J.H., et al. (2008a). Experiences with implementation of computerized tools in health care units - A review article. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 753–775.Google Scholar
André, B., Ringdal, G.I., Loge, J.H., et al. (2008b). The importance of key personnel and active management for successful implementation of computer-based technology in palliative care: results from a qualitative study. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 26, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
André, B., Ringdal, G.I., Loge, J.H., et al. (2009). Implementation of computerized technology in a palliative care unit. Palliative & Supportive Care, 7, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R.F. (1999). Social Interaction Systems Theory and Measurement. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Bales, R.F. & Cohen, S.P. (1979). SYMLOG a System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Kaasa, S. & Loge, J.H. (2003). Quality of life in palliative care: Principles and practice. Palliative Medicine, 17, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenigs, R.J., Hare, S.E. & Hare, A.P. (2002). SYMLOG Reliability and Validity. San Diego: Symlog Consulting Group.Google Scholar
Koenigs, R.J., Hare, S.E., Hare, A.P., et al. (2005). Reliability and validity. In Analysis of Social Systems. Hare, A.P., Sjovold, E., Baker, H.G., et al. (eds.), pp. 482–503. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Neergaard, M.A., Olesen, F., Jensen, A.B., et al. (2010). Shared care in basic level palliative home care: organizational and interpersonal challenges. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 13, 1071–1077.Google Scholar
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Schroder, C., Bansch, A. & Schroder, H. (2004). Work and health conditions of nursing staff in palliative care and hospices in Germany. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736486/.Google Scholar
Scott-Findlay, S. & Estabrooks, C.A. (2006). Mapping the organizational culture research in nursing: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56, 498–513.Google Scholar
Sepulveda, C., Marlin, A., Yoshida, T., et al. (2002). Palliative care: The World Health Organization's global perspective. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 24 91–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjøvold, E. (1995). Group in Harmony End Tension: The Development of an Analysis of Polarization in Gorups and Organizations Based on the SYMLOG Method. Trondheim: The Norwegian institute of Technonogy.Google Scholar
Sjøvold, E. (1998). Group and Organizational Culture from the Viewpoint of Polarization. Conference on group and social psychology. Lindkjoping.Google Scholar
Sjøvold, E. (2002). The SPGR Manual Oslo: SPGR publishing.Google Scholar
Sjøvold, E. (2006). Maturity and effectiveness in small groups. Nordic Psychology, 58, 43–56.Google Scholar
Sjøvold, E. (2007). Systematizing Person-Group Relations (SPGR) - A field theory of social. Small Group Research, 38, 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleutel, M.R. (2000). Climate, culture, context, or work environment? Organizational factors that influence nursing practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 30, 53–58.Google Scholar
Strobe, W. (2008). Social Psychology and Health. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386.Google Scholar