Frequency and outcomes of workplace incivility in healthcare: A scoping review of the literature.

AIMS: We aim to evaluate the frequency and outcomes of workplace incivility in healthcare for nursing management. BACKGROUND: Incivility in the workplace is a significant problem that is important to nurse managers, as it goes directly against the fundamental values and ethics of providing high-quality care to patients. The Joint Commission (2021) and the American Nurses Credentialing Center have called on healthcare organizations to identify and intervene in the problem of workplace incivility. EVALUATION: Studies included in this scoping review were those that measured and analysed the frequency and outcomes of workplace incivility in healthcare. Four databases were searched, and 28 articles were reviewed. Evaluation was based on general quality, including study characteristics, instruments, and statistical analyses. KEY ISSUES: Studies used a quasi-experimental design, and most focused on the Registered Nurse population. The Workplace Incivility Scale was the most commonly used instrument to measure workplace incivility frequency. The most frequently studied work-related outcomes were burnout, satisfaction, and turnover. CONCLUSIONS: Although the frequency of workplace incivility in healthcare is not clear, its consequences are substantial. Multiple studies have revealed significant relationships between workplace incivility and work-related outcomes that are important to nurse managers. Research is needed on non-nursing healthcare professionals, and validation studies are needed on instruments used to measure workplace incivility frequency. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The findings of this review can help nurse managers better understand the phenomenon, frequency, and impact of workplace incivility in the healthcare setting and move toward addressing the problem of workplace incivility among nurses and other healthcare professionals.

Promoting a Culture of Civility in Nursing Learning Environments.

BACKGROUND: Incivility in nursing education imperils the well-being of both faculty and students, is damaging to professional relationships, and hinders the exchange of knowledge in nursing learning environments. Because supportive, respectful learning environments foster students' ability to flourish and reach their highest potential, it is essential that open dialogue and relationship building in nursing education are as valued as content taught. PURPOSE: This study explored strategies for promoting a culture of civility in nursing learning environments. METHOD: A 9-item survey was used to gather insights from nurses (n = 441) about how incivility could be managed or prevented in order to promote a culture of civility. RESULTS: The data revealed 2 major themes: personal action, and organization action. CONCLUSION: Nursing faculty, students, and schools/programs can promote civility in nursing learning environments through establishing a power balance, effective communication, self-reflection, setting clear expectations early, and instituting consequences for violating a culture of civility.

A Comparison of High-Dose Cytarabine During Induction Versus Consolidation Therapy in Newly Diagnosed AML.

The proportion of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cured is increased by administering high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC). It remains uncertain whether to administer HiDAC as induction or consolidation, and whether ≥1 cycle of HiDAC is required. Our retrospective study of 416 adult AML patients, excluding good risk cytogenetics, compared a single cycle of HiDAC-based therapy followed by 2 cycles of standard-dose cytarabine (SDAC) (HiDAC induction cohort) with SDAC-based chemotherapy followed by 2 cycles of HiDAC-based chemotherapy (HiDAC consolidation cohort). Complete remission (CR) rate was greater in the HiDAC induction cohort (90% vs 78%, P < 0.01) which did not lead to an improved overall survival (48% vs 43%, P = 0.18) or disease-free survival (DFS) (39% vs 45%, P = 0.95). We noted that, after censoring for allogeneic hematopoetic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) in CR1, the cumulative incidence of relapse was lower in the HiDAC consolidation cohort in patients with intermediate risk cytogenetics (68% vs 44%, P = 0.01), which lead to a greater DFS (30% vs 47%, P = 0.095). In the patients with adverse risk cytogenetics, the RR was numerically greater in the HiDAC consolidation cohort (52% vs 80%, P = 0.60) which lead to a lower DFS (27% vs 4%, P = 0.11). Our data show that, although the HiDAC induction cohort (1 cycle of HiDAC) achieved a greater CR rate, there were no overall survival differences between the 2 cohorts, and that the HiDAC consolidation cohort (2 cycles of HiDAC) had a lower RR and greater DFS in those patients with intermediate risk cytogenetics who did not undergo alloHSCT in CR1.