Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs' perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate.

Results

A total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians.

Conclusions

The WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals - especially for nurses.

SUBMITTER: Wagner A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6341698 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study.

Wagner Anke A Rieger Monika A MA Manser Tanja T Sturm Heidrun H Hardt Juliane J Martus Peter P Lessing Constanze C Hammer Antje A

BMC health services research 20190121 1

<h4>Background</h4>Promoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics ...[more]

PMID: 30665401

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals' job satisfaction is a critical indicator of healthcare performance, pivotal in addressing challenges such as hospital quality outcomes, patient satisfaction, and staff retention rates. Existing evidence underscores the significant influence of healthcare leadership on job satisfaction. Our study aims to assess the impact of leadership support on the satisfaction of healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, and administrative staff, in China's leading hospitals.MethodsA cross-sectional survey study was conducted on healthcare professionals in three leading hospitals in China from July to December 2021. These hospitals represent three regions in China with varying levels of social and economic development, one in the eastern region, one in the central region, and the third in the western region. Within each hospital, we employed a convenience sampling method to conduct a questionnaire survey involving 487 healthcare professionals. We assessed perceived leadership support across five dimensions: resource support, environmental support, decision support, research support, and innovation encouragement. Simultaneously, we measured satisfaction using the MSQ among healthcare professionals.ResultsThe overall satisfaction rate among surveyed healthcare professionals was 74.33%. Our study revealed significant support from senior leadership in hospitals for encouraging research (96.92%), inspiring innovation (96.30%), and fostering a positive work environment (93.63%). However, lower levels of support were perceived in decision-making (81.72%) and resource allocation (80.08%). Using binary logistic regression with satisfaction as the dependent variable and healthcare professionals' perceived leadership support, hospital origin, job role, department, gender, age, education level, and professional designation as independent variables, the results indicated that support in resource provision (OR: 4.312, 95% CI: 2.412 ∼ 7.710) and environmental facilitation (OR: 4.052, 95% CI: 1.134 ∼ 14.471) significantly enhances healthcare personnel satisfaction.ConclusionThe findings underscore the critical role of leadership support in enhancing job satisfaction among healthcare professionals. For hospital administrators and policymakers, the study highlights the need to focus on three key dimensions: providing adequate resources, creating a supportive environment, and involving healthcare professionals in decision-making processes.

Project description:BackgroundChronic low-grade inflammation has been suggested as a key factor in the association between stress exposure and long-term health. Care work is recognized as a profession with a high degree of job stress and health risks. However, for care professionals, the study base on inflammatory activity due to adverse working conditions is limited.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore associations between self-reported psychosocial working conditions and care professionals' biomarkers of systemic low-grade inflammation.MethodsN = 140 geriatric care professionals (79.3% females, mean age = 44.1 years) of six care facilities were enrolled in a cross-sectional study consisting of standardized medical examinations and employee surveys. Standardized questionnaires were used for evaluation of psychosocial work characteristics (work overload, job autonomy, social support) based on Karasek's job strain model. Blood samples were drawn for two biomarkers of inflammatory activity: C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte count. Analyses comprised uni- and multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses.ResultsWe determined a proportion of 5.4% of care professionals with increased low-grade inflammation. We further observed a relationship between job autonomy and CRP, such that reports of high job autonomy were associated with increased levels of CRP (adjusted OR = 4.10, 95% CI [1.10, 15.26], p = .035), which was robust in additional analyses on further potential confounders. No significant associations with participants' leukocyte numbers were found.ConclusionsThis exploratory study contributes to the research base on links between workplace stress and ensuing illness in care professionals. Our findings may help to identify risk and protective factors of the work environment for chronic low-grade inflammation. The results require further scrutiny, and future prospective studies on associations of psychosocial working conditions, low-grade inflammation and long-term health outcomes in care professionals are needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe literature on perceptual differences between managers and staff regarding social dynamic factors (e.g., leadership, climate) in nursing settings is sparse. Addressing this gap in knowledge is critical for informing implementation efforts and improving patient and organizational outcomes. The purpose of this study was to test the perceptual differences regarding implementation leadership and implementation climate between nursing staff and their managers.MethodsThis study was a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data collected in 2016-2017. The setting included 22 adult medical-surgical units nested in 7 acute care hospitals in the Eastern and Midwestern United States. Participants were registered nurses (N = 261) and nurse managers (N = 22) who completed an electronic survey consisting of the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS), the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS), and demographic items. Differences in perception were analyzed at the unit level using structural equation modeling to develop latent difference score models (LDS). We assessed associations of the LDSs with manager ILS and ICS scores, years of nursing experience, and years of experience working on the current unit. The association of ILS LDS with the observed nursing staff ICS scores was also analyzed.ResultsHigher manager scores on the ILS and ICS were associated with greater perceptual differences in implementation leadership and implementation climate. Greater years of experience as a nurse were associated with greater perceptual differences in ILS and ICS scores. Greater tenure on the unit was associated with smaller differences on the ILS knowledge domain. Greater perceptual differences regarding implementation leadership were associated with worse staff ratings of implementation climate.ConclusionsAlthough this study observed significant relationships among manager ILS and ICS scores, staff-manager perceptual differences, and staff ratings of implementation climate in nursing settings, it is still unclear why perceptual differences in implementation leadership and climate exist and how to address them. Future studies are warranted to test the effect of perceptual differences on implementation and patient outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionAn overview of the requirements for the head of a surgical department in Germany should be given.Materials and methodsA retrospective literature research on surgical professional policy publications of the last 10 years in Germany was conducted.ResultsSurveys show that commercial influences on medical decisions in German hospitals have today become an everyday, predominantly negative, actuality. Nevertheless, in one survey, 82.9% of surgical chief physicians reported being very satisfied with their profession, compared with 61.5% of senior physicians and only 43.4% of hospital specialists. Here, the chief physician is challenged. Only 70% of those surveyed stated that they could rely on their direct superiors when difficulties arose at work, and only 34.1% regarded feedback on the quality of their work as sufficient. The high distress rate in surgery (58.2% for all respondents) has led to a lack in desirability and is reflected in a shortage of qualified applicants for resident positions. In various position papers, surgical residents (only 35% describe their working conditions as good) demand improved working conditions. Chief physicians are being asked to facilitate a suitable work-life balance with regular working hours and a corporate culture with participative management and collegial cooperation. Appreciation of employee performance must also be expressed. An essential factor contributing to dissatisfaction is that residents fill a large part of their daily working hours with non-physician tasks. In surveys, 70% of respondents stated that they spend up to ≥3 h a day on documentation and secretarial work.DiscussionThe chief physician is expected to relieve his medical staff by employing non-physician assistants to take care of non-physician tasks. Transparent and clearly structured training to achieve specialist status is essential. It has been shown that a balanced work-life balance can be achieved for surgeons. Family and career can be reconciled in appropriately organized departments by making use of part-time and shift models that exclude 24-h shifts and making working hours more flexible.

Project description:BackgroundThe Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a universal, priority-based approach for the assessment and treatment of critically ill patients. Although the ABCDE approach is widely recommended, adherence in practice appears to be suboptimal. The cause of this non-compliance is unknown. As knowledge is a prerequisite for adherence, the aim of this study was to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge of the ABCDE approach.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at the Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands. A digital multiple-choice assessment tool of the ABCDE approach was developed by an expert panel through a mini-Delphi method and validated by performing test item statistics and an expert-novice comparison. The validated test was sent to healthcare professionals (nurses, residents and medical specialists) of the participating departments: Anaesthesiology, Paediatrics, Emergency Department and the Neonatal, Paediatric and Adult Intensive Care Units. Primary outcome was the test score, reflecting individual level of knowledge. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis and ANOVA were used.ResultsTest validation showed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.71 and an expert-novice comparison of 91.9% (standard deviation (SD) 9.1) and 72.4% (15.2) respectively (p < 0.001). Of 954 eligible participants, 240 filled out the questionnaire. The mean (SD) test score (% of correct answers) was 80.1% (12.2). Nurses had significantly lower scores (74.9% (10.9)) than residents (92.3% (7.5)) and medical specialists (88.0% (8.6)) (p < 0.001). The Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (75.9% (12.6)) and Adult Intensive Care Unit (77.4% (11.2)) had significantly lower scores than Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (85.6% (10.6)), Emergency Department (85.5% (10.4)) and Anaesthesiology (85.3% (10.6)) (p < 0.05). Younger participants scored higher than older participants (-0.30% (-0.46;-0.15) in test score/year increase in age).ConclusionScores of a validated knowledge test regarding the ABCDE approach vary among healthcare professionals caring for critically ill patients. Type of department, profession category and age had a significant influence on the test score. Further research should relate theoretical knowledge level to clinical practice. Tailored interventions to increase ABCDE-related knowledge are recommended.

Project description:BackgroundStudies on the impact of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID) for healthcare workers (HCWs) rarely include the full spectrum of hospital workers, including less visible patient support roles. In the early days of the pandemic, COVID testing was preferentially available to HCWs. The objective of this study was to understand how individual experiences for all HCWs during the pandemic were associated with perceptions of access to, and receipt of COVID testing .MethodsAll hospital employees (n = 6736) in a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey regarding perceived access to, and receipt of COVID testing during the first wave of the pandemic (March - August 2020). Responses were linked to human resources data. Log binomial univariate and multivariable models were used to estimate associations between individual and employment variables and COVID testing.ResultsA total of 2543 employees responded to the survey (38 %). The mean age was 40 years (± 14). Respondents were female (76 %), white (55 %), worked as nurses (27 %), administrators (22 %) and patient support roles (22 %); 56 % of respondents wanted COVID testing. Age (RR 0.91, CI 0.88-0.93), full time status (RR 0.85, CI 0.79-0.92), employment tenure (RR 0.96, CI 0.94-0.98), changes in quality of life (RR 0.94, CI 0.91-0.96), changes in job duties (RR 1.19, CI 1.03-1.37), and worry about enough paid sick leave (RR 1.21, CI 1.12-1.30) were associated with interest in testing. Administrators (RR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.72) and patient support staff (RR 0.85, CI 0.78-0.92) were less likely than nurses to want testing. Age (RR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.07), material hardships (RR 0.87, CI 0.79-0.96), and employer sponsored insurance (RR 1.10, CI 1.00-1.22) were associated with receiving a COVID test. Among all employees, only administrative/facilities staff were less likely to receive COVID testing (RR 0.69, CI 0.59-0.79).ConclusionsThis study adds to our understanding of how hospital employees view availability of COVID testing. Hazard pay or other supports for hospital workers may increase COVID testing rates. These findings may be applicable to perceived barriers towards vaccination receipt.

Project description:ObjectiveTo survey the healthcare professionals' background and experiences from work with patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units (ICUs) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingCOVID-ICUs in 27 hospitals across Norway.ParticipantsHealthcare professionals (n=484): nurses (81%), medical doctors (9%) and leaders (10%), who responded to a secured, web-based questionnaire from 6 May 2020 to 15 July 2020.Primary and secondary measuresHealthcare professionals': (1) professional and psychological preparedness to start working in COVID-ICUs, (2) factors associated with high degree of preparedness and (3) experience of working conditions.ResultsThe age of the respondents was 44.8±10 year (mean±SD), 78% were females, 92% had previous ICU working experience. A majority of the respondents reported professional (81%) and psychological (74%) preparedness for working in COVID-ICU. Factors significantly associated with high professional preparedness for working in COVID-19-ICU in a multivariate logistic model were previous ICU work experience (p<0.001) and participation in COVID-ICU simulation team training (p<0.001). High psychological preparedness was associated with higher age (p=0.003), living with spouse or partner (p=0.013), previous ICU work experience (p=0.042) and participation in COVID-ICU simulation team training (p=0.001). Working with new colleagues and new professional challenges were perceived as positive in a majority of the respondents, whereas 84% felt communication with coworkers to be challenging, 46% were afraid of being infected and 82% felt discomfort in denying access for patient relatives to the unit. Symptoms of sweating, tiredness, dehydration, headache, hunger, insecurity, mask irritation and delayed toilet visits were each reported by more than 50%.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals working during the first wave of COVID-ICU patients in Norway were qualified and prepared, but challenges and potential targets for future improvements were present.Trial registration numberNCT04372056.

Project description:ObjectivesThe current European crisis in human resources in health has opened the debate about working conditions and fair wages. This is the case with Resident doctors, which have faced challenges throughout Europe. In Portugal, they account for about a third of the doctors in the Portuguese National Health Service. No studies to date objectively demonstrate the working conditions and responsibilities undertaken. This study aims to quantify the residents' workload and working conditions.MethodsObservational, retrospective cross-sectional study which involved a survey on the clinical and training activity of Portuguese residents, actively working in September 2020. The survey was distributed through e-mail to residents' representatives and directly to those affiliated with the Independent Union of Portuguese Doctors. The descriptive analysis assessed current workload, and logistic regression models analyzed associations with geographical location and residency seniority.ResultsThere were a total of 2,012 participants (19.6% of invited residents). Of the residents giving consultations, 85.3% do so with full autonomy. In the emergency department, 32.1% of the residents work 24 h shifts and 25.1% work shifts without a specialist doctor present. Regarding medical training, 40.8% invest over EUR 1,500 annually. Autonomy in consultations was associated with being a Family Medicine resident (OR 4.219, p < 0.001), being a senior resident (OR 5.143, p < 0.001), and working in the Center (OR 1.685, p = 0.009) and South regions (OR 2.172, p < 0.001). Seniority was also associated with investing over EUR 1,500 in training annually (OR 1.235, p = 0.021).ConclusionResidents work far more than the contracted 40 h week, often on an unpaid basis. They present a high degree of autonomy in their practice, make a very significant personal and financial investment in medical training, with almost no time dedicated to studying during working hours. There is a need to provide better working conditions for health professionals, including residents, for the sake of the sustainability of health systems across Europe.

Dataset Information

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on working conditions, leadership, and safety climate: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets