Godt – eller godt nok? Hvordan opplever sykepleiere idealer og realiteter i utøvelsen av yrket?

Authors

  • Bjørg Christiansen UiT The Arctic University of Norway
  • Ida Torunn Bjørk Universitetet i Oslo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7557/14.3774

Keywords:

good work, professional identity, cross-pressure, nursing, qualitative study, clinical practice, godt arbeid, yrkesidentitet, krysspress, sykepleie, kvalitativ studie, klinisk praksis

Abstract

Good work – or good enough? How do nurses perceive ideals and realities in the profession?

The purpose of the study is to explore what it entails for nurses to perform good work. It may be challenging to maintain good work when demands of efficiency threaten professional and ethical ideals. How nurses describe expectations they set for themselves and others will also indicate their views on professional identity. The study is qualitative with a descriptive and explorative design, based on individual semi-structured interviews with eight nurses in specialist- and community health care. The data were analyzed in three different interpretational contexts, aiming at an insightful and valid understanding of the text. Findings show that good work was associated with responsible practice and a patient-centered approach. An obligation to update themselves is integrated into their professional identity. Findings show that we can no longer take for granted that nurses handle cross-pressures and value-conflicts in the profession.

Author Biographies

  • Bjørg Christiansen, UiT The Arctic University of Norway

    førsteamanuensis, Institutt for sykepleie og helsefremmende arbeid, Fakultet for helsefag

  • Ida Torunn Bjørk, Universitetet i Oslo

    professor, Avdeling for sykepleievitenskap, Institutt for Helse og Samfunn

Published

2016-06-23

Issue

Section

Peer-reviewed articles

How to Cite

Christiansen, B., & Bjørk, I. T. (2016). Godt – eller godt nok? Hvordan opplever sykepleiere idealer og realiteter i utøvelsen av yrket?. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Helseforskning, 12(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.7557/14.3774

Most read articles by the same author(s)