Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Q-methodological study uncovers four distinct perception types for dementia safety management among acute care nurses, highlighting the need for tailored, person-centred safety strategies.
AIM: To identify the types of nurses' perceptions regarding safety management for patients with dementia in acute care hospitals. DESIGN: A Q-methodological study. METHODS: Data were collected between 31 July and 30 September 2025. A total of 161 statements were generated through individual in-depth interviews with eight registered nurses from general wards at a tertiary acute care hospital in South Korea and through a literature review. Subsequently, 34 statements were selected for Q-sorting and 22 nurses completed the procedure. Data were analysed using PQMethod with principal component analysis and varimax rotation, followed by interpretive analysis. RESULTS: Four types of nurses' perceptions of safety management for patients with dementia were identified: physical control, relational collaboration, sceptical conformity and adaptive flexibility. CONCLUSION: Safety management for patients with dementia in acute care requires a context-dependent, multidimensional approach encompassing physical, emotional, environmental and organisational aspects. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Understanding nurses' distinct perceptual orientations can inform type-specific practice interventions and support efforts towards safer, more person-centred care for patients with dementia in acute care settings. IMPACT: This study offers insights for moving beyond uniform approaches and designing tailored, type-specific safety strategies in acute care by showing that similar safety behaviours may carry different meanings across nurses' perceptual orientations. REPORTING METHOD: This study followed the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research and Q-methodology conventions. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: