This speech discusses how the professorship intends to support practitioners in the nursing domain and contribute to shaping nursing leadership and each person's professional individuality. The title of the speech, “Notes on Nursing 2.0,” is particularly intended to emphasize the need for these changes in the nursing domain. Not by assuming that nothing has changed in care and nursing since Nightingale's time. There has. Being educated in the professional domain is not only a given but a requirement. The knowledge domain of care and nursing has developed far and wide in nursing diagnostics and standards. Nursing science research, which Nightingale once started as the first female statistician in the British Kingdom, has firmly established itself in education and practice. Wanting to be of significance to others out of compassion is still the professional motivation, but there is no longer a subservient servitude (Cingel van der, 2012). At the same time, wholehearted leadership is not yet taken for granted in daily practice and optimal professional practice falters due to an equality principle of differently educated caregivers and nurses that has been held for too long. That is the need for change to which this 2.0 version “Notes on Nursing” and the lectorate want to contribute in the coming years. Chapter 1, through the metaphors in the story “The Cat Who Looked at the King,” describes the vision of emancipatory action research and the change principles that the lectorate will deploy. Chapter 2 contains the reason, mission and lines of research that are interrelated within the lectorate. Chapters 3 and 4 address the themes of identity and leadership, discussing their interrelationship with professional practice and developing a research culture. In addition, specific aspects that influence practice and work culture today are addressed, and how the lectorate contributes specifically to the development of nursing leadership and the formation of professional identity in the relevant domain is described. Chapter 5 contains a summary of the principles on which the research program is based, as well as information on current and future projects. Chapter 6 provides background information on the lector and the members of the knowledge circle.
BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are mainly inactive. Nursing staff can encourage residents to perform functional activities during daily care activities. This study examines 1) the extent to which nursing staff perceive that they encourage functional activity in nursing home residents and 2) the associations between these nursing behaviors and professional characteristics, contextual factors, and information-seeking behaviors. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 368 registered nurses and certified nurse assistants, working in somatic and psychogeriatric wards of forty-one nursing homes throughout the Netherlands participated. Self-reported data were collected with a questionnaire, comprising the MAINtAIN-behaviors, which assesses the extent to which nursing staff encourage functional activities, including different activities of daily living (ADL), household activities, and miscellaneous encouraging activities (e.g., discouraging informal caregivers from taking over activities residents can do themselves). Additional data collected included professional characteristics (e.g., age), contextual factors (e.g., ward type), and information-seeking behaviors (e.g., reading professional journals). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the extent to which functional activities were encouraged. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed to determine the associations between the encouragement of functional activities and other factors. RESULTS: Nursing staff perceived that household activities (mean 4.1 (scale range 1-9), SD 1.9) were less often encouraged than ADL (mean 6.9, SD 1.2) or miscellaneous activities (mean 6.7, SD 1.5). The percentage of nursing staff stating that different household activities, ADL, or miscellaneous activities were almost always encouraged ranged from 11 to 45%, 41 to 86%, and 50 to 83% per activity, respectively. The extent to which these activities were encouraged differed for some of the professional characteristics, contextual factors, or information-seeking behaviors, but no consistent pattern in associations emerged. CONCLUSIONS: According to nursing staff, household activities are not as often encouraged as ADL or miscellaneous activities. Professional characteristics, contextual factors, and information-seeking behaviors are not consistently associated with the encouragement of functional activity. Nursing staff should also focus on improving the encouragement of household activities. Future research could examine the role of other factors in encouraging functional activity, such as experienced barriers, and assess to what extent the perception of nursing staff corresponds with their actual behavior.
Objective: To obtain insight into (a) the prevalence of nursing staff–experienced barriers regarding the promotion of functional activity among nursing home residents, and (b) the association between these barriers and nursing staff–perceived promotion of functional activity. Method: Barriers experienced by 368 nurses from 41 nursing homes in the Netherlands were measured with the MAastrIcht Nurses Activity INventory (MAINtAIN)-barriers; perceived promotion of functional activities was measured with the MAINtAIN-behaviors. Descriptive statistics and hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed. Results: Most often experienced barriers were staffing levels, capabilities of residents, and availability of resources. Barriers that were most strongly associated with the promotion of functional activity were communication within the team, (a lack of) referral to responsibilities, and care routines. Discussion: Barriers that are most often experienced among nursing staff are not necessarily the barriers that are most strongly associated with nursing staff–perceived promotion of functional activity.
