Compensation information is vital for workers since it helps them analyze and negotiate fair remuneration and benefits for a particular job. In healthcare, the Covid-19 pandemic caused an extraordinary demand on the nursing profession. Nurses have displayed unmatched potential and adaptability while caring for increased numbers of critical patients. At the same time, nursing shortages have recorded crisis levels, causing more physical and emotional pressure on the available nurses. For such reasons, the healthcare industry should provide nurses with better salaries, work conditions, and benefits. However, the reality is that there exist only limited studies examining the nursing compensation subject despite their role being critical in the overall healthcare industry.
The AORN Salary Compensation Survey
Summary of the Article
In 2018, Donald Bacon and Kim Stewart surveyed perioperative nurses’ compensation. This study marked the sixteenth compensation report for perioperative nurses. The inquiry utilized a multiple regression framework to investigate how job titles, educational attainment level, experience, and geographical region impacted the perioperative nurse’s salary and remunerations (Bacon & Stewart, 2018). This study also examined the impacts of other compensation variables like overtime, shift differentials, and on-call compensations on total remuneration (Bacon & Stewart, 2018). The research also investigated the existing state of the nursing shortage and the leading causes of job satisfaction and frustration.
Among the significant findings of this research is that the nurse’s average compensation depends on the size of the facilities they serve, their job title, and the average time the professional spends in direct patient care. For instance, a staff nurse spending an average of 90.9 hours in direct patient care received $71,600 in small facilities and about $72,400 in extensive facilities (Bacon & Stewart, 2018). Salaries for other roles like hospital administrator, nurse manager, charge nurses, and clinical nurse specialists are also higher in those serving in extensive facilities than in the small ones. Other factors determining what perioperative nurses take homes include duration of work experience, interoperative roles, certification, educational attainment levels, presence of a collective bargaining unit, gender, and household status, among others (Bacon & Stewart, 2018). The job, coworkers, salary, and benefits played a significant role in nurses’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction in this survey. Job scheduling, facility management, organizational culture, and workload also increased respondent satisfaction.
The above article was first published on 27th November 2018. This is barely four years later, meaning it is recent. The information is also current since it is a report on the annual compensation survey and the sixteenth one since it commenced. The writing of this article is unbiased. The information is generalizable and objective. The authors have carefully used professional language and explained how they conducted the study. The audience can follow the procedure and grasp the message and insights without much struggle following the decent, uncomplicated, and detailed approach manifested in the report. The sample size for all variables is enough to make good references or generalize the findings.
The article’s most vital point is estimating the perioperative nurse’s compensation. Many variables impact nursing compensation. For this reason, the “Multiple regression model makes it possible to estimate the effects of one variable on compensation while holding the other variables statistically constant ” (Bacon & Stewart, 2018; P. 605). The deliver usage of this model enabled the researchers to not only represent various variables that affect nurses’ compensation but also rank them from the most to least influential.
On the other hand, the weakest point in the article entails demonstrating the factors that make nurses satisfied or dissatisfied. The authors’ submission report that “the job itself and the respondents’ coworkers ranked the first and second most frequently cited sources of satisfaction for satisfied nurses ” (Bacon & Stewart, 2018, p. 614). After that, they forgot to demonstrate how these variables, among others, influenced satisfaction levels among the nurses. It could have been great to expound more on those issues.
Salary and Compensation Survey for Urology Nurse Practioner
The subject article was the first survey to analyze compensation for urology nurse practitioners (Quallich et al., 2020). Therefore, it serves as a good foundation that NPs can use while negotiating compensation for the new role of promotion. NPS is a broad profession with extensive specializations. Many NPS, like urologists, mainly depend on national NP salary surveys and facility trends. However, research indicates that regardless of geographic location and work conditions, NPs are compensated eighty-five to one hundred percent of the doctor’s fees (Quallich et al., 2020). The AANP prepares a yearly wage survey of its members, and most of this information is only available to the members. In some instances, this data and statistics differ from what the Bureau of Labor Statistics shares. For instance, the AANP stated that there were 290,000 licensed NPs in the U.s earning a median salary of $110,000; the Bureau of Labour stated in the same period that NPs in the country were 200,600 and earning a median salary of $109,820 (Quallich et al., 2020). Worse, very little information exists concerning NP compensation in various specialty settings.
In the study, only urology NPs and urogynecology environments were chosen as respondents, irrespective of years of experience. The compensation range for the sample interviews was between seventy to one hundred and sixty thousand dollars. Almost a third of the sample compensation ranged from one hundred and one to one hundred and ten thousand dollars (Quallich et al., 2020). In addition to the basic payment, the report noted that education and association membership funds formed part of the compensation package.
The article is recent, being published in December 2020. An article published less than two years is current. The sampling and analysis were also done in this same period, meaning the information was updated. More so, there was no bias in this research considering the large number the objectivity and detail in the research metholody. The sample size of 110 respondents is also an excellent number to offer good insights and hence the generalizability of the findings.
The most vital point in this article is about the uniqueness and research focus. The authors mention that “this is the first salary survey to be completed that reports exclusively on salary and compensation for the sub-specialty role of the urology NP” (Quallich et al., 2020, p. 2). Being the pioneer inquiry, it offers an excellent opportunity for supporting conducting an additional NP role into respective specialties.
The weakest point involves the constrained sample size, considering the wide regional distribution. “Participants represented a wide regional distribution, with 36 states represented in the survey, despite overall modest sample size” (Quallich et al., P. 3). The sample size could have been more significant to allow effective generalizability and reliability to this research.
Compensation is a critical factor in any employment and profession. Studies regarding nursing compensations are limited, although this profession is highly essential, especially in the period after the coronavirus pandemic. Compensation and satisfaction are complicated. Nursing compensation requires more focus to offer them in a way that will record high satisfaction and retention levels among nursing professionals.
Bacon, D. R., & Stewart, K. A. (2018). Results of the 2018 AORN salary and compensation survey. AORN Journal, 108(6), 602–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.12424
Quallich, S. A., Crisenbery, M., & Lajiness, M. J. (2020). What Is a Urology Nurse Practitioner Worth? 2020 Salary and Compensation Survey. Urologic Nursing, 40(6), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.7257/1053-816X.2020.40.6.267