Throughout the COVID-19 epidemic, the media, lawmakers, and the general people have rallied alongside frontline healthcare professionals worldwide. It is worth emphasizing that the hero story might be troublesome for nurses and other healthcare professionals. This article examines and discusses the repercussions of being declared a hero. In turn, this essay aims to consider the features of using qualitative research in nursing practice. An essential factor is that this research method has certain limitations that may prevent its more extensive use.
During the COVID-19 epidemic, various flaws in the healthcare system were discovered, necessitating a thorough inspection and investigation. A careful examination of system faults that caused government agencies and medical procedures to be caught off guard should be conducted. Improvements in public health infrastructure and communications are also urgently needed. HCWs should be prepared so that they are not forced to care for patients who are unable to protect themselves in the future. More crucially, HCWs require institutional mental health support. COVID-19 aggravated an already-existing burnout pandemic in the healthcare industry. Unjust practice culture, which leads to moral discomfort, felt helplessness, long work hours, inadequate remuneration, and uncompetitive rewards, are all factors that contribute to burnout (Halberg et al., 2020). Institutions cannot simply place the blame for improving HCW resilience when confronted with a failing healthcare infrastructure on the HCWs. Systemic adjustments must be implemented to address these problems.
Although there is a study on physician and nurse burnout, there is less research on nurse practitioner burnout. Nurse Practitioners encounter distinct problems in practice, necessitating additional NP-focused/NP-led research to understand better how to offer adequate assistance. Following these investigations, practical strategies for structural transformation should be developed. Positive systemic reforms are the only way people can adequately support HCWs who have been executing heroic activities, which takes much more than praise. Thus, this study is aimed at drawing people’s attention to the problem of the heroic narrative. This leads to a wrong perception of doctors and nurses about what they should sacrifice to save patients (Halberg et al., 2020). Therefore, based on this study, certain conclusions can be drawn to improve the quality of treatment. By removing a particular incorrect barrier of responsibility from HCWs, patients will be able to get more benefits. This will be reflected in the fact that healthcare workers will take care of themselves, including without exposing themselves to unnecessary risk, which can lead to undesirable consequences.
The nursing staff rejected the hero narrative in ways that demonstrate how the hero narrative leads to preset qualities, such as thoughts of invincibility and self-sacrifice, working in dangerous situations knowingly and voluntarily, transcending obligations, and imbuing a boundless identity. Being hailed as a hero prevents vital talks about rights and boundaries from taking place (Halberg et al., 2020). Therefore, the main objective of this study is to convey the attitude of employees toward the fact that they are treated as heroes. Such an attitude restricts doctors’ actions and puts them at risk. In order to improve patient outcomes, it is necessary to change the public mood regarding the position of nurses and doctors in the era of the pandemic. Thus, people should not take their activities when workers have to sacrifice themselves as a matter of course literally. This is important to create a comfortable and safe environment for both patients and doctors.
The Barriers to Using Qualitative Research
Despite the qualitative method’s reputation as a lesser-valued form of research evidence, several elements contribute to the relevance of qualitative research’s contribution to nursing knowledge. Qualitative research, like any research, must be judged on its own merits in order for practitioners to assess its value. Qualitative research’s key limitations are primarily focused on the persons involved: the researcher and the study subject (Squires, 2018). Subjectivity, the impact of personal biases, and the relationship to research theory (or lack thereof) are all potential concerns.
The fact that qualitative research results are not deemed a sufficiently solid type of evidence on which to base care implies that this research technique is significantly defective in the eyes of some. It may be claimed, for example, that because the researcher is participating in the study, the results are more subjective and less objective than those of quantitative research (Squires, 2018). Unlike quantitative research, where the researcher is detached and outside of the research environment, qualitative research allows the researcher to be involved in and affect data collection.
Compared to the use of rigorous planned timetables, methods, and questionnaires meant to avoid bias in quantitative research, qualitative research’s flexibility is perceived as a flaw. Quantitative research is linked to measurement and the production of complex (specific) numerical data, whereas qualitative information is based on words and descriptions (soft data) (Squires, 2018). For some, the textual format of reporting findings is untrustworthy. Many of the qualities that qualitative investigators regard as positives are considered flaws by people who do not believe in this approach.
According to the literature, qualitative research is becoming more important and is enhancing nursing knowledge, particularly in regard to specific components of nursing expertise. This means it’s critical for practicing nurses to comprehend it, assess its value, and apply it to their patient care (Squires, 2018). It is only natural that knowledge claims derived from qualitative research be subjected to scrutiny and formal examination. This suggests that qualitative research should be accessible for searching, auditing, and critique. This is a method of evaluating its contribution to nursing knowledge advancement in terms of testing, expanding, or questioning what is previously known or believed.
Halberg, N., Jensen, P. S., & Larsen, T. S. (2021). We are not heroes-The flipside of the hero narrative amidst the COVID19-pandemic: A Danish h0.
ospital ethnography. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(5), 2429–2436. Web.
Squires, A. (2018). Qualitative research in nursing and health professions regulation. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 9(3), 15–26. Web.