Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesThe current study measures the differences in humble leadership and team performance in nursing based on the sample’s characteristics.DesignA cross-sectional study.SettingIn 2022, the current study sample was recruited from governmental and private universities and hospitals using an online survey.ParticipantsA convenience snowball sample of 251 nursing educators, nurses and students was recruited.ResultsA leader’s humble leadership, a team’s humble leadership and overall humble leadership were at moderate levels. The overall mean team performance was ‘working well’. The single male humble leaders, aged more than 35 years and working full-time in an organisation with quality initiatives, have a higher leader’s humble leadership. Members of the team aged more than 35 years working full-time in organisations with quality initiatives have a higher team’s humble leadership. Team performance in organisations with quality initiatives was higher in resolving many conflicts by compromising between team members, with each one giving in a little. There was a moderate correlation (r=0.644) between the total scores of the overall humble leadership and team performance. Humble leadership correlated significantly but negatively and weakly with quality initiatives (r=−0.169) and the participant’s role (r=−0.163). There was no significant correlation between team performance and the sample’s characteristics.ConclusionsHumble leadership has positive outcomes, such as team performance. The shared sample characteristic that sets the differences between a leader’s and a team’s humble leadership and team performance was the presence of quality initiatives in the organisation. The shared sample characteristics that set the differences in a leader’s and a team’s humble leadership were working full-time and the presence of quality initiatives in the organisation. Humble leaders are contagious; they will produce creative team members by ‘social contagion’, ‘behavioural similarity’, ‘team potency’ and ‘collective focus’. Thus, leadership protocols and interventions are mandated to fuel humble leadership and team performance.

ObjectiveThis study explored how humble leadership among nursing faculty influences team performance and the success of quality improvement and accreditation projects in Jordanian private universities, where such leadership approaches remain understudied despite growing accreditation demands.Methods and analysisA qualitative study was conducted using face-to-face semistructured interviews with 20 nursing faculty members from two private universities in Jordan (April–July 2023), selected via convenience snowball sampling. Thematic analysis followed A framework to examine participants’ perspectives on (1) manifestations of humble leadership, (2) its impact on team dynamics and (3) project outcomes. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was achieved, with member checking used to validate interpretations.ResultsThe analysis revealed three key findings. First, humility manifested at both leadership and team levels through shared learning and mutual growth. Second, humble leadership strengthened team performance by fostering open communication and psychological safety. Finally, accreditation success was facilitated by leaders who exemplified humility through inclusive delegation and recognition of contributions, proving particularly impactful in resource-limited academic environments.ConclusionThe findings suggest humble leadership may serve as a valuable approach for nursing faculties navigating accreditation challenges, particularly in private university settings. While demonstrating potential benefits for team cohesion and project outcomes, the study highlights the need for intentional leadership development programmes that cultivate these competencies among nursing educators. Future research should explore how these findings translate to clinical nursing leadership contexts.

ObjectiveCompetency denotes the ability to execute a certain task or action with the necessary knowledge. Competency definitions and measurements are challenging for nursing and other professions due to their multidimensional aspects. This study aimed to clarify the concept of competency in nursing practice and propose an accurate definition.DesignWalker and Avant’s approach was used to elucidate the concept of competency in nursing practice.Data sourcesScienceDirect, PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus and CINAHL were searched from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2021.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies with the keywords: “concept analysis”, “competence”, “competency” and “nursing”. The search was limited to full-text studies written in English that used theoretical and empirical approaches.Data extraction and synthesisWe extracted the concept’s uses, defining attributes, and the consequences and antecedents of the concept.Results60 articles were identified from the search process; after excluding duplicates and works unrelated to the study aim and context following the full-text screening, 10 articles were included in this concept analysis. The common defining attributes of competency were knowledge, self-assessment and dynamic state. Competency in nursing practice had many reported positive consequences that include but are not limited to improved patient, nurse and organisational outcomes.ConclusionsNurses can benefit from the result of this analysis in practice to implement professional care, in particular clinical contexts and situations to enhance patients’ health.

BackgroundDeveloping a safety culture in hospitals improves patient safety-related initiatives. Limited recent knowledge about patient safety culture (PSC) exists in the healthcare context.AimsThis study assessed nurses’ reporting on the predictors and outcomes of PSC and the differences between the patient safety grades and the number of events reported across the components of PSC.MethodsA cross-sectional comparative research design was conducted. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (https://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=available-checklists) guided the study. The researcher recruited a convenience sample of 300 registered nurses using the hospital survey on patient safety culture, with a response rate of 75%.ResultsNurses reported PSC to be ‘moderate’. Areas of strength in PSC were non-punitive responses to errors and teamwork within units. Areas that needed improvements were the supervisor’s/manager’s expectations and actions in promoting safety and communication openness. Some significant correlations were reported among PSC components. Significant differences in means were observed for patient safety grades in six out of the ten PSC components and one outcome item. Organisational learning/continuous improvement, hospital handoffs and transitions, years of experience in the current hospital, the supervisor’s/manager’s expectations and actions in promoting safety and gender predicted PSC. Of the outcomes, around half of the sample reported a ‘very good’ patient safety grade, and ‘no events’ or ‘one to two events’ only were reported, and nurses ‘agreed’ on the majority of items, which indicates a positive perception about the overall PSC in the hospitals. In addition, nurses ‘most of the time’ reported the events when they occurred. PSC components correlated significantly and moderately with PSC outcomes.Conclusion and relevance to clinical practicePSC was moderate with an overall positive nurses’ perceptions. PSC’s strengths should be maintained, and areas of improvement should be prioritised and immediately tackled. Assessing PSC is the first step in improving hospitals’ overall performance and quality of services, and improving patient safety practices is essential to improving PSC and clinical outcomes.

ObjectivesTo examine the predictors and differences of the nurses’ perceived cultural humility in clinical settings, as perceived by nursing students.DesignA quantitative cross-sectional design was carried out using the consensus-based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies checklist.SettingsA governmental and a private university.ParticipantsA non-random convenience sample of 264 nursing students from universities in Jordan was recruited.Main outcome measuresThe nurses’ perceived cultural humility in clinical settings.MethodsAfter a pilot study to validate the adopted instrument for use in a student sample, an online survey using Google Forms was posted in August 2023. The acquired data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics from the Statistical Package for Social Sciences V.26.ResultsOn a 1–5 Likert Scale, a score of less than 4 indicated low nurses’ perceived cultural humility; thus, it was considered low (mean=3.51/5, SE=0.036). This cut-off was based on the scoring method employed by Sexton et al, which defined scores below 4 on a 5-point scale as low. The 95% CI for the overall mean score was 3.44 to 3.58. The highest means of the nurses’ perceived cultural humility in clinical settings were that nurses are considerate (mean=3.79, SE=0.060) and they already know a lot (mean=3.73, SE=0.052). The lowest mean of the nurses’ perceived cultural humility in clinical settings was that nurses are genuinely interested in learning more (mean=3.14, SE=0.073). Being trained in governmental hospitals, an average and junior nursing student predicted the nurses’ perceived cultural humility in clinical settings (t-test=13.55, p=0.001, R2=0.082, adjusted R2=0.071). At 0.05, the 95% CIs for the predictors were as follows: governmental hospital (−7.35 to –1.69), graduate point average ≤2.5 (−9.12 to –2.96) and junior level (0.09 to 4.37).ConclusionsThis study contributed valuable insights into nurses’ cultural humility in clinical settings; further research is still needed. Low-reported nurses’ perceived cultural humility calls for immediate teaching strategies to integrate cultural humility within clinical settings and create more conducive learning environments. When examining the predictors and differences of the nurses’ perceived cultural humility in clinical settings, it became evident that hospitals had the most significant factor. It is essential to integrate cultural humility at an early stage of students’ academic level; they will treat their patients with a culturally oriented approach and will have positive perceptions of the nurses who mentor them. Hospitals had the most significant factor, specifically the type of hospital where students were trained (governmental vs private), which strongly influenced their perceptions of nurses’ cultural humility.

Humble leaders recognize their team’s efforts, encourage open communication, learn from mistakes, and motivate people to share ideas and concerns, all while striving for greater achievements. Humble leadership applies to both individual leaders and teams. This leadership style can lead to positive outcomes, including improved team performance. However, the extent to which humble leadership enhances team performance is not yet fully understood. Examining the impact of humble leadership on team performance can provide important insights into how various leadership styles influence overall team dynamics, particularly in high-stress settings such as hospitals and educational institutions. This research, which focused on faculty members, nurses, and students, highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration among different professional groups. The study aimed to investigate the predictors and differences in humble nursing leadership and team performance. The researchers recruited a sample of 252 faculty members, nurses, and students through a cross-sectional study conducted in 2022 in selected Jordanian public and private universities and hospitals. The study, using SPSS version 25, found that leaders and teams generally exhibited humble behavior, with an average rating of 3.67 (SD = 0.85). The highest two of the humble leaders were leaders’ receptivity to others’ views (M = 3.78, SD = 1.08) and appreciating others’ strengths (M = 3.76, SD = 1.12). Yet, the leader’s admission of not knowing something (M = 3.47, SD = 1.11) and recognition of others’ superior knowledge and skills (M = 3.59, SD = 1.11) were the lowest means. The highest two of a humble team were members’ willingness to learn from one another (M = 3.82, SD = 0.97) and their openness to new ideas (M = 3.71, SD = 1.04). However, the team had low means of acknowledging their lack of knowledge (M = 3.55, SD = 1.00) and recognizing when others possess greater knowledge and skills (M = 3.64, SD = 0.98). The team performed relatively well and effectively, with a mean of 3.51 (SD = 1.42). The highest two means of team performance were in team members expressing their diverse opinions (M = 3.60, SD = 1.55) and all team members actively participating in discussions (M = 3.59, SD = 1.67), contrary to the lowest two means observed when team members shared and received criticism without taking it personally (M = 3.29, SD = 1.62) and when conflicts were resolved through compromise, with each member making concessions (M = 3.36, SD = 1.59). A moderate positive correlation was found between humble leadership and team performance (r = .63, p = .001). The years of work experience for the faculty members or nurses, as well as the level of study for the students, were shared predictors of humble leadership and team performance (F = 5.20, df = 1, p = .02, R2 = .203, Adjusted R2 = .07). The non-nursing students showed higher levels of humble leadership than the nursing students (p = .01). The individuals involved in quality initiatives in academic and healthcare settings demonstrated higher levels of humble leadership (p = .01). The nursing faculty members had superior team performance compared to the nurses and nursing students (p = .02) and also had better team performance than the non-nursing faculty members (p = .04). On the other hand, the nurses had higher team performance than the nursing faculty members and the nursing students (p = .03). Humble leadership significantly influences the overall performance achieved by a team. Plain language summary This study measured the predictors and differences in humble nursing leadership and team performance. A convenience snowball sample of 252 faculty members, nurses, and students was recruited via a transverse study in 2022 in selected Jordanian public and private universities and hospitals. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; the 25th version), the General Linear Model showed that faculty members’ or nurses’ years of work experience/students’ level of study was the shared predictor of humble leadership and team performance. Also, the T-tests or one-way Analysis of Variance showed that non-nursing students exhibited higher overall humble leadership levels than nursing students. Individuals involved in quality initiatives in academic and healthcare settings demonstrated higher levels of humble leadership. Nursing faculty members had higher team performance than non-nursing faculty members. Also, nurses outperformed nursing faculty members and students in team performance. Generally, leaders and teams were humble. The team functioned relatively well and effectively. Humble leadership has a positive impact on team performance.

Background In this era of rapid development in science and technology, creativity has become an important requirement in nursing to satisfy the daily needs of their patients. However, nurses’ creativity and related aspects are rarely studied in nursing research. This study was aimed to explore the factors influencing nurses’ creativity and to develop a decision support system using machine learning to predict creativity levels among nurses. Methods A multidisciplinary design comprising machine learning algorithms mixed with a descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational design was implemented to enhance data analysis and decision-making. A convenience sample of 191 registered nurses from eight hospitals– representing the broader nursing community in Jordan- was recruited to complete the online survey. Results revealed that staff nurses reported a high level of creativity (M = 44.95). The machine learning model achieved good prediction performance with high precision. Specifically, Naïve Bayes achieved a recall of 99% for predicting psychological safety, around 98% for both gender and time commitment, 96% for years of experience, 92% for nurse age, and 82% for humble leadership. A decision support system was successfully developed based on these findings. Additionally, a multiple linear regression revealed five main predictors of nurses’ creativity: humble leadership, psychological safety, experience, quality initiatives, and education level, together explaining about 30% of the variance in perceived creativity among staff nurses. Conclusions To augment nurses’ creativity, managers are advised to adopt flexible leadership styles, create a safe work environment, and encourage staff development. The developed decision support system may be valuable for helping nurse managers evaluate creativity among nurses; this allows for more informed decisions about staff allocation, development, and resource optimization. Researchers are encouraged to use machine learning models because they achieve good prediction performance with high precision. Clinical trial number Not applicable.

The application of AI in nursing research is increasing, enhancing objectivity and productivity while raising concerns about liability and scientific integrity. To explore predictors and differences in nursing educators' perceptions of the risks and benefits of using AI in nursing research. A cross-sectional study surveyed 311 nursing educators from various universities. 27% used ChatGPT, and 61.58% were from governmental universities. High perceived risks included liability (  = 3.78,  = 0.036), unregulated standards (  = 3.76,  = 0.035), and communication barriers (  = 3.74,  = 0.036). Perceived benefits included reduced costs (  = 3.88, 0.045) and improved outcomes (  = 3.81, 0.045). Predictors included marital status (  = 7.67, = 0.001), age (  = -14.65, = 0.001), level of education (  = 13.80, = 0.001), academic rank (  = -1.755, = 0.001), and teaching experience (  = 2.793, = 0.001). The model was significant ( (df = 7) = 86.82, = 0.001,  = 0.660) and explained 66.00% of the variance in the mean score of the perceived use of AI in nursing research. There are significant differences in nursing educators' use of AI in nursing research based on their age ( -test = 27.63, df = 4, = 0.001), academic rank ( -test = 60.79, df = 5, = 0.001), and teaching experience ( -test = 17.02, df = 4, = 0.001). Educators recognize both risks and benefits of AI in nursing research. Tailored training and institutional support are essential for responsible adoption. Tackling these issues can pave the way for nursing research to flourish in a rapidly changing digital world. Nursing educators need the tools they need to critically interact with AI in research. The authors of this manuscript have adhered to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, which was used to guide the study. There was no patient or public contribution, as the sample included nursing educators from two governmental universities and one private university.

Research shows steady growth in clinical leadership (CL); however, CL is still misunderstood in all clinical environments. Few studies have been conducted on the CL needs of nursing staff. No studies have linked CL needs (CLeeNs) in nursing to safety climate (SC) in clinical settings. Therefore, this study analyzed the differences in the perceived nurses' CL needs and SC between nurses and nurse managers. A cross-sectional research design was implemented employing an online survey. A convenience sample of 252 registered nurses (RNs) and 139 nurse managers was employed using the Clinical Leadership Needs Analysis (CLeeNA) instrument and the Safety Climate Survey (SCS). The chi-square test showed that nurse managers differed from nurses in most of the sample demographics, except in their time commitment, area of work, and the reported decision-making style in their area of work. The mean score of the overall scale of CLeeNs was \"very important\" (  = 6.05,  = 0.072). The highest mean of the subscales was for \"standards of care.\" In contrast, the lowest mean of the subscales was \"financial and service management.\" The T-test revealed that the total mean score of CLeeNs was higher among nurse managers as compared to that of nurses (6.52 ± 1.01 vs. 5.79 ± 1.55,  = .001), which held the same trend for all subscales and the individual mean scores of CLeeNs for the privilege of nurse managers. The mean score of the perceived SCS of the total sample was 3.41 (  = 0.032), indicating negative perceptions of the SC. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the total and individual mean scores of SC (  = .252), nurse managers reported slightly higher scores (3.46 ± 0.64) than nurses (3.38 ± 0.62). This result indicates that there were no significant differences found between RNs and nurse managers in SC scores, and a weak negative correlation was observed between CLeeNs and SC. CL and CLeeNs are essential for a safe climate; however, little is known about how nurses and nurse managers differ in their perceived CL and SC in practice. CL should be sustained in all hospital settings. The low perceived SC is worrying and mandates immediate intervention at all organizational levels. Notably, a negative correlation was observed between CLeeNs and SC, suggesting that stronger perceptions of CL do not necessarily translate into more favorable SC perceptions.