TITLE

The Impact of a Nursing Peer Review Model on Nurse's Perception of Autonomy, Decision Making, and Professional Status

AUTHOR(S)
L., Fujita; K., Johnson; M., Harris
PUB. DATE
April 2008
SOURCE
Critical Care Nurse;Apr2008, Vol. 28 Issue 2, pe10
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Abstract
ABSTRACT
An abstract of the article "The Impact of a Nursing Peer Review Model on Nurse's Perception of Autonomy, Decision Making and Professional Status," by L. Fujita, K. Johnson and M. Harris is presented.
ACCESSION #
31609369

 

Related Articles

  • Regulatory bill lets peers decide.  // Ophthalmology Times;3/13/95, Vol. 20 Issue 11, p24 

    Reports on legislative provisions in the United States that would provide for peer review panels that could include individuals with a financial stake in the decisions. Risk assessments to be conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before issuing any new regulation; Cost-benefit...

  • The check-up. Henderson, Perry M. // Outlook;Summer96, Vol. 64 Issue 2, p33 

    Presents a scenario depicting a peer review between certified public accountants. Suggestions for a good review. INSET: Updated peer review standards..

  • Avoiding Peer Review findings. Part 2. Hoover, Delano C.; Roberts, Glenn A. // Ohio CPA Journal;Feb96, Vol. 55 Issue 1, p42 

    Part II. Discusses several problems encountered during on-site peer reviews. Audit deficiencies; Non-compliance to continuing education policies; Inadequate reference library.

  • What's up with peer review? Stevens, Michael G. // Practical Accountant;Apr98, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p45 

    Discusses the changes in the peer review program in relation to accounting in the United States. Remarks from the Chair of the SEC Practice Section Peer Review Program, Thomas A. McGrath, Jr.; Internet address for information on peer review; Information on the peer review standards. INSET:...

  • Editors, editorial boards, and reviewers: The gatekeepers of knowledge. Crase, Darrell // Physical Educator;Late Winter92, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p28 

    Editorial. Offers peer commentary on peer reviewers and editors. Understanding of peer refereeing; Variances in refereeing practices; Selection and responsibilities of editorial boards and reviewers.

  • Priority areas of peer evaluations. Coughlan, William // Association Management;Nov94, Vol. 46 Issue 11, p75 

    Discusses the importance of a peer evaluation. Categories of operations that merited review.

  • Is peer review overrated? Shatz, David // Monist;Oct1996, Vol. 79 Issue 4, p536 

    Comments on the dependence of academic scholarship on a system of peer review. Publishing of peer review work; Objections to peer review.

  • Another blow against peer review confidentiality. Rose, Joan R. // Medical Economics;11/13/95, Vol. 72 Issue 21, p18 

    Reports on the lessening of peer review confidentiality in California. Controversy in the review of the case of an anesthesiologist with drug problems; Protection of treatment records.

  • Does the "Blindness" of Peer Review Influence Manuscript Selection Efficiency? Laband, David N.; Piette, Michael J. // Southern Economic Journal;Apr94, Vol. 60 Issue 4, p896 

    Investigates the degree to which peer review processes affect manuscript selection efficiency. Characterization of a single-blind review process by two types of errors; Comparison of performance between double-blind and single-blind review processes; Costs associated with each type of review...

  • The paradox of peer review. Pulec, Jack L. // ENT: Ear, Nose & Throat Journal;Apr1998, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p244 

    Editorial. Focuses on the system of peer review. Principles of peer review; Good and bad things about peer review; Information on the International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications in Prague, Czech Republic.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics