Why Do Student Nurses Continue to Use the Draglift?
Abstract
A patient handling technique known as the ‘draglift’ has been widely condemned as dangerous to both patients and staff for well over two decades. Assuming this message to be well know, and that practitioners do not knowingly set out to injure themselves or others, the question must therefore be asked ‘Why is the draglift still being used?’This paper reports on the use of Grounded Theory to identify the influences on student nurses that shape their continued use of the draglift. Focus groups were used for data gathering with 30 student nurses taking part. The following ‘categories’for continued use of the draglift were identified; (i) vicarious learning, (ii) groupthink, and (iii) the theory-practice gap. The socio-psychological mechanism of ‘belonging’ is proposed as the substantive theory that integrates the emergent categories, their properties and dimensions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Groupthink emerged as a bias that contributed to continued use of the draglift-nursing students indicated that the 'need to belong' with the senior nurses superseded the need for safer patient-handling techniques.
“Groupthink emerged as a bias that contributed to continued use of the draglift—nursing students indicated that the ‘need to belong’ with the senior nurses superseded the need for safer patient-handling techniques.”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Allen, 2018
Four empirical studies on groupthink among health professional teams in patient care were identified-two quantitative studies and two qualitative studies.
“We identified four empirical studies on groupthink among health professional teams in patient care—two quantitative studies and two qualitative studies (Table 2) (Allen, 2018; Harmon et al., 2019; Rosander et al., 1998; Snell, 2010).”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Allen, 2018
The Allen et al. study examined the continued use of the draglift for transporting patients, which is considered to be a dangerous practice.
“This study examined the continued use of the draglift for transporting patients, which is considered to be a dangerous practice.”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Allen, 2018
Allen et al. used focus groups to explore patient safety and procedural training amongst nursing students.
“Allen et al. used focus groups to explore patient safety and procedural training amongst nursing students.”
From Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as Allen, 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review
DiPierro, K., Lee, H., Pain, K. J., Durning, S. J., & Choi, J. J. (2022) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2021.1987404 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Allen, L.
- Corresponding author
- Allen, Linda
- Venue
- Contemporary Ergonomics 2007
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Published
- 2018-11-23
- Pages
- 451-456
- OpenAlex
- W583958075
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.90
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Taylor & Francis eBooks (publishedVersion)
- TeesRep (Teesside University) (submittedVersion)
- Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (submittedVersion)
- Taylor & Francis eBooks (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Keywords
- patient handling, nursing students, nursing education, occupational safety, observational learning, groupthink, theory-practice gap, sense of belonging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
