In recent years, upwards of half of working RNs have not had full-time
employment. This is a most unusual circumstance for any profession,
and serves as a stark contrast with other jurisdictions, like the
US, where 71.6% of RNs are full-time. This disproportionate amount
of part-time and casual work is a threat to the quality of patient
care, to the viability of the health care system, and to the nursing
profession itself.

The recent SARS outbreak, marked by heroic efforts on the part
of nurses and other health-care providers, also dramatically underscored
the problem in relying on casual nursing positions. Many nurses
were directed to work in one place only. This reality heightened
the staffing shortage, placed nurses under extreme duress from even
heavier workloads and added additional financial stress to those
nurses who were unable to continue their practice in other settings.
SARS was a reminder that we currently have no redundancy or safety
cushion in our health-care system, and left us gravely concerned
about its capacity to deal with another crisis.

It is even more urgent to know more about registered nurses who
are currently working part-time or casual and to ask the following
questions. Are RNs working part-time or casual by choice? If not,
what are the barriers to full-time employment? If so, are they doing
so because there is something about the work that discourages full-time
employment? We understand that some RNs may prefer part-time employment
at certain points in their careers, but it is critical to investigate
why such a high fraction are currently not working full-time.

To discover the attitudes and experiences of non-full-time RNs
in Ontario, RNAO sent out a survey to 5,000 RNs who had registered
in 2001 as being part-time or casual in nursing. The response rate
was considerable – 40.6% – high for a survey that relied
on one mailing with no follow-up calls or mailings. It is encouraging
that so many RNs took the time to share their views. The large response
rate gives us high confidence that the results are representative
of the overall population (the global 95% confidence interval is
respectably small – plus-or-minus 2.11%). Our sample profile
closely matches that of the overall population quite closely, so
we are further assured that it is representative.