الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 136 |  |  |
| | | from | 136 | | |
Abstract
Tools: Two tools were used to conduct this study:
Tool (1): Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL-5)
This tool was developed by Stamm (2009) to assess level of nurses’ compassion fatigue. It consists of 30 items divided into three main dimensions namely; Burnout (BO-10 items) is one of the elements of CF. It is associated with feelings of hopelessness and difficulties in dealing with work or in doing job effectively. These negative feelings usually have a gradual onset. Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS-10 items) is the second component of CF; it is about work-related, secondary exposure to extremely or traumatically stressful events. Developing problems due to exposure to other‘s trauma is somewhat rare but does happen to many people who care for those who have experienced extremely or traumatically stressful events. Compassion Satisfaction (CS-10 items) is about the pleasure nurses derive from being able to do their work well.
Compassion fatigue includes the sum of items related to BO and STS reverse scores were done for 5 items related to BO. The responses of all three dimensions were measured by using five-point likert scale ranging from (1) never to (5) very often. The total score range from (20-100). Each dimension has a maximum composite score of 50 which is computed by adding the scores of the subscale items. A quartile method was used to create cut scores for the compassion fatigue and satisfaction based on Harr et al. (2014). The score percentage ranges from 20% to less than 44% indicates low CF, score between 44% to less than 82% reveals average CF, and score equal or more than 82% indicates high CF. While, the score of the items of CS is completely reversed to CF. The total score on CS ranges from 10-50,the score percentage of CS from 20% to less than 44% indicates low level of CS, score between 44% to less than 82% reveals an average level of CS, and the score equal or more than 82% indicates high level CS.
Tool (2): Unfavorable Decision Outcomes Questionnaire
This tool was adopted by the current researcher based on the work of number of scholars such as van Dijk et al. (1999a); Bonifield and Cole (2007); O’Connor (1995), O‘Connor (2010); Camille et al. (2004). This questionnaire was used to assess unfavorable decision outcomes as perceived by studied nurses. It consists of three scales (parts); decision-regret, disappointment, and conflict.
Part A: Decisions Regret Scale
This scale was developed by the researcher based on review of literature Zeelenberg (1999) to assess level of ED nurses‘ decision regret. It consists of 30 items divided into eight dimensions namely; Feeling/ experience at the moment of the event (11 items), nurse perception/thinking (3 items), e-motivational goals (2 items), outcome regret (5 items), option regret (2 items), process of regret (one item), action tendencies (one item), anticipated regret (5 items).The reverse score was done for 9 items of the regret. The responses were measured on a five-point likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Scores were transformed the total and the score of each subscale and combined into overall score for all subscales. The total score estimated by summing, dividing by the number of items, and multiplying by 25, with higher scores indicating more decision regret using a cutoff point of a total score <25 and divided DRS scores into 3 categories based on Ghidini et al. (2016). The total scores ranges from (30-150).The score.