IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i13-14p2482-2494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How forensic mental health nurses’ perspectives of their patients can bias healthcare: A qualitative review of nursing documentation

Author

Listed:
  • Krystle Martin
  • Rosemary Ricciardelli
  • Itiel Dror

Abstract

Aims and Objectives Our aim was to examine the notes produced by nurses, paying specific attention to the style in which these notes are written and observing whether there are concerns of distortions and biases. Background Clinicians are responsible to document and record accurately. However, nurses’ attitudes towards their patients can influence the quality of care they provide their patients and this inevitably impacts their perceptions and judgments, with implications to patients’ care, treatment, and recovery. Negative attitudes or bias can cascade to other care providers and professionals. Design This study used a retrospective chart review design and qualitative exploration of documentation using an emergent theme analysis. Methods We examined the notes taken by 55 mental health nurses working with inpatients in the forensic services department at a psychiatric hospital. The study complies with the SRQR Checklist (Appendix S1) published in 2014. Results The results highlight some evidence of nurses’ empathic responses to patients, but suggest that most nurses have a style of writing that much of the time includes themes that are negative in nature to discount, pathologise, or paternalise their patients. Conclusions When reviewing the documentation of nurses in this study, it is easy to see how they can influence and bias the perspective of other staff. Such bias cascade and bias snowball have been shown in many domains, and in the context of nursing it can bias the type of care provided, the assessments made and the decisions formed by other professionals. Relevance to Clinical Practice Given the critical role documentation plays in healthcare, our results indicate that efforts to improve documentation made by mental health nurses are needed and specifically, attention needs to be given to the writing styles of the notation.

Suggested Citation

  • Krystle Martin & Rosemary Ricciardelli & Itiel Dror, 2020. "How forensic mental health nurses’ perspectives of their patients can bias healthcare: A qualitative review of nursing documentation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2482-2494, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:13-14:p:2482-2494
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15264
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15264?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goldin, Claudia D. & Rouse, Cecilia, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind†Auditions on Female Musicians," Scholarly Articles 30703974, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    2. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 715-741, September.
    3. Krystle Martin & Elke Ham & N Zoe Hilton, 2018. "Documentation of psychotropic pro re nata medication administration: An evaluation of electronic health records compared with paper charts and verbal reports," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(15-16), pages 3171-3178, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    2. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2023. "Scientific Background to the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2023," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2023-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    3. Dominique Meurs & Patrick A. Puhani, 2021. "Culture as a Hiring Criterion: Systemic Discrimination in a Procedurally Fair Hiring Process," RF Berlin - CReAM Discussion Paper Series 2106, Rockwool Foundation Berlin (RF Berlin) - Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).
    4. Sansone, Dario, 2019. "Pink work: Same-sex marriage, employment and discrimination," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Chen, Yiu Por (Vincent) & Zhang, Yuan, 2018. "A decomposition method on employment and wage discrimination and its application in urban China (2002–2013)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Laura Hospido & Luc Laeven & Ana Lamo, 2022. "The Gender Promotion Gap: Evidence from Central Banking," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(5), pages 981-996, December.
    7. Julian Kolev & Yuly Fuentes-Medel & Fiona Murray, 2019. "Is Blinded Review Enough? How Gendered Outcomes Arise Even Under Anonymous Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 25759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Ulf Rinne, 2018. "Anonymous job applications and hiring discrimination," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 1-11, October.
    9. Ludwig, Sandra & Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Thoma, Carmen, 2017. "Do women have more shame than men? An experiment on self-assessment and the shame of overestimating oneself," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 31-46.
    10. Cohen-Zada, Danny & Krumer, Alex & Rosenboim, Mosi & Shapir, Offer Moshe, 2017. "Choking under pressure and gender: Evidence from professional tennis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-190.
    11. Diana Moreira & Santiago Pérez, 2022. "Who Benefits from Meritocracy?," NBER Working Papers 30113, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Adnan, Wifag & Arin, K. Peren & Charness, Gary & Lacomba, Juan A. & Lagos, Francisco, 2022. "Which social categories matter to people: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 125-145.
    13. Barron, Kai & Ditlmann, Ruth & Gehrig, Stefan & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2020. "Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Chen Liang & Yili Hong & Bin Gu & Jing Peng, 2018. "Gender Wage Gap in Online Gig Economy and Gender Differences in Job Preferences," Working Papers 18-03, NET Institute.
    15. Ginsburgh, Victor & Radermecker, Anne-Sophie & Tommasi, Denni, 2019. "The effect of experts’ opinion on prices of art works: The case of Peter Brueghel the Younger," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 36-50.
    16. Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2018. "Do Equal Employment Opportunity Statements Backfire? Evidence From A Natural Field Experiment On Job-Entry Decisions," NBER Working Papers 25035, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Tsou, Meng-Wen & Yang, Chih-Hai, 2019. "Does gender structure affect firm productivity? Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 19-36.
    18. Heather Savigny, 2017. "Cultural Sexism is Ordinary: Writing and Re-Writing Women in Academia," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 643-655, November.
    19. Hamish Low & Luigi Pistaferri, 2019. "Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences," Economics Series Working Papers 889, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:13-14:p:2482-2494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.