Dataset Information

Development of a short questionnaire based on the Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index in primary health care.

ABSTRACT: Background:Professional nursing environments determine the quality of care and patient outcomes. Assessing the quality of environments is essential to improve and obtain better health outcomes. Simplifying and shortening the way to evaluate environments reliably is also important to help nurses better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their environments. In that sense, identifying essential elements of nursing environments would allow the construction of short assessment tools to improve such environments. Objective:To construct a short tool to assess primary health care (PHC) nursing environments based on the Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI) questionnaire. Methods:Observational, cross-sectional, analytical study (data collection February-April 2015). Tool: PES-NWI (31 items). Population: PHC nurses (three health districts in Valencia, Spain) with more than 3 months in the organization. The nurses were asked to select the 10 elements of the questionnaire (items) that they considered key to facilitate and improve professional care, establishing as a final selection criterion that they obtain a global election >40%. Variables: sociodemographic and 31 questionnaire items. Analysis: descriptive statistics, reliability, multidimensional scaling (ALSCAL), factor analysis, multiple linear regression. Finally, we have analyzed the concordance between both measurements (TOP10 score on the full scale score) using the Bland-Altman method. Results:Study sample = 269 (Response rate = 80.29%). A total of 10 elements were identified based on selection frequency of the questionnaire PES-NWI. A factorial analysis explained 62.1% of variance, internal structure of three dimensions: (1) Participation in leadership and management, (2) Nursing foundations for quality of care, (3) Adequacy of resources, with Accumulate Variance explained: Component (1): 24%; Component (2): 43.1%; Component (3): 62.1%. Reliability (Cronbach's Alpha) was 0.816 for short questionnaire, and >0.8 for all measurements. Stress = 0.184 and RSQ = 0.793. Bland-Altman method: the scaling tends to be 1.92 points higher (equivalent to a maximum deviation of 1.54%) than the full-scale PES-NWI score (max score on PES-NWI = 124 points). Conclusions:It is possible to identify essential elements of environments to construct a short tool that simplifies the study of PHC environments. Conducting rapid studies of environments will provide managers with information about specific elements that require prioritization to enhance quality of care and safety.

SUBMITTER: Gea-Caballero V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6660900 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a short questionnaire based on the Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index in primary health care.

Gea-Caballero Vicente V Juárez-Vela Raúl R Díaz-Herrera Miguel-Ángel MÁ Mármol-López María-Isabel MI Alfaro Blazquez Ruben R Martínez-Riera José Ramón JR

PeerJ 20190724

<h4>Background</h4>Professional nursing environments determine the quality of care and patient outcomes. Assessing the quality of environments is essential to improve and obtain better health outcomes. Simplifying and shortening the way to evaluate environments reliably is also important to help nurses better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their environments. In that sense, identifying essential elements of nursing environments would allow the construction of short assessment tools t ...[more]

PMID: 31380155

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn Canada, approximately 81% of residents of nursing homes live with mild to severe cognitive impairment. Care needs of this population are increasingly complex, but resources, such as staffing, for nursing homes continue to be limited. Staff risk missing or rushing care tasks and interfering with quality of care and life.ObjectiveTo assess the association of work environment with missing and rushing essential care tasks in nursing homes.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used survey data collected from a random sample of 93 urban nursing homes in Western Canada, stratified by health region, owner-operator model, and facility size, between May and December 2017. All 5411 eligible care aides were invited to participate, and 4016 care aides agreed and completed structured, computer-assisted interviews in person. Analyses were conducted from July 4, 2018, to February 27, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported number of essential care tasks missed (range, 0-8) or rushed (range, 0-7) in the most recent shift. Two-level random intercept hurdle regressions controlled for care aide, care unit, and nursing home characteristics.ResultsOf 4016 care aides, 2757 (68.7%) were 40 years or older, 3574 (89.1%) were women, and 1353 (66.3%) spoke English as an additional language. For their most recent shift, 2306 care aides (57.4%) reported missing at least 1 essential care task and 2628 care aides (65.4%) reported rushing at least 1 essential care task. Care aides on units with more favorable work environments (eg, more effective leadership, better work culture, higher levels of buffering resources) were less likely to miss any care tasks (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.90; P < .001) and less likely to rush any care task (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that rates of missed and rushed essential care in Canadian nursing homes were high and were higher in units with less favorable work environments. This finding suggests that work environment should be added to the list of modifiable factors associated with improving nursing home care, as it may be an important pathway for improving quality of care. Further research is needed to understand associations of missed and rushed care and of improving work environments with outcomes among residents of nursing homes.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized.ObjectiveTo characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic health record (EHR).Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide, cross-sectional study used EHR data from physicians and APPs (ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at all US institutions that used Epic Systems' EHR between January and May 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to April 2023.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment scheduling patterns, percentage of new and established and level of evaluation and management (E/M) visits, and EHR use metrics per day and week.ResultsThe sample consisted of 217 924 clinicians across 389 organizations, including 174 939 physicians and 42 985 APPs. Although primary care physicians were more likely than APPs to have more than 3 days per week with appointments (50 921 physicians [79.5%] vs 17 095 APPs [77.9%]), this trend was reversed for medical (38 645 physicians [64.8%] vs 8124 APPs [74.0%]) and surgical (24 155 physicians [47.1%] vs 5198 APPs [51.7%]) specialties. Medical and surgical specialty physicians saw 6.7 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively, more new patient visits than did their APP counterparts, whereas primary care physicians saw 2.8 percentage points fewer new patient visits than did APPs. Physicians saw a greater percentage of level 4 or 5 visits across all specialties. Medical and surgical physicians spent 34.3 and 45.8 fewer minutes per day, respectively, using the EHR than did APPs in their specialties, whereas primary care physicians spent 17.7 minutes per day more. These differences translated to primary care physicians spending 96.3 minutes more per week using the EHR than APPs, whereas medical and surgical physicians spent 149.9 and 140.7 fewer minutes, respectively, than did their APP counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional, national study of clinicians found significant differences in visit and EHR patterns for physicians compared with APPs across specialty types. By underscoring the different current usage of physicians vs APPs across specialty types, this study helps place into context the work and visit patterns of physicians compared with APPs and serves as a foundation for evaluations of clinical outcomes and quality.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past decades, reorganizations and structural changes in Swedish primary care have affected time utilization among health care professionals. Consequently, increases in administrative tasks have substantially reduced the time available for face-to-face consultations. This study examined how work-time was utilized and the association between work time utilization and the perceived psychosocial work environment in Swedish primary care settings.MethodsThis descriptive, multicentre, cross-sectional study was performed in 2014-2015. Data collection began with questionnaire. In the first section, respondents were asked to estimate how their workload was distributed between patients (direct and indirect patient work) and other work tasks. The questionnaire also comprised the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, which assessed the psychosocial work environment. Next a time study was conducted where the participants reported their work-time based on three main categories: direct patient-related work, indirect patient-related work, and other work tasks. Each main category had a number of subcategories. The participants recorded the time spent (minutes) on each work task per hour, every day, for two separate weeks. Eleven primary care centres located in southeast Sweden participated. All professionals were asked to participate (n?=?441), including registered nurses, primary care physicians, care administrators, nurse assistants, and allied professionals. Response rates were 75% and 79% for the questionnaires and the time study, respectively.ResultsAll health professionals allocated between 30.9% - 37.2% of their work-time to each main category: direct patient work, indirect patient work, and other work. All professionals estimated a higher proportion of time spent in direct patient work than they reported in the time study. Physicians scored highest on the psychosocial scales of quantitative demands, stress, and role conflicts. Among allied professionals, the proportion of work-time spent on administrative tasks was associated with more role conflicts. Younger staff perceived more adverse working conditions than older staff.ConclusionsThis study indicated that Swedish primary care staff spent a limited proportion of their work time directly with patients. PCPs seemed to perceive their work environment in negative terms to a greater extent than other staff members. This study showed that work task allocations influenced the perceived psychosocial work environment.

Project description:BackgroundNursing work environments (NWEs) in Canada and other Western countries have increasingly received attention following years of restructuring and reported high workloads, high absenteeism, and shortages of nursing staff. Despite numerous efforts to improve NWEs, little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to improve NWEs. The aim of this study was to review systematically the scientific literature on implemented interventions aimed at improving the NWE and their effectiveness.MethodsAn online search of the databases CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, ABI, Academic Search Complete, HEALTHstar, ERIC, Psychinfo, and Embase, and a manual search of Emerald and Longwoods was conducted. (Quasi-) experimental studies with pre/post measures of interventions aimed at improving the NWE, study populations of nurses, and quantitative outcome measures of the nursing work environment were required for inclusion. Each study was assessed for methodological strength using a quality assessment and validity tool for intervention studies. A taxonomy of NWE characteristics was developed that would allow us to identify on which part of the NWE an intervention targeted for improvement, after which the effects of the interventions were examined.ResultsOver 9,000 titles and abstracts were screened. Eleven controlled intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, of which eight used a quasi-experimental design and three an experimental design. In total, nine different interventions were reported in the included studies. The most effective interventions at improving the NWE were: primary nursing (two studies), the educational toolbox (one study), the individualized care and clinical supervision (one study), and the violence prevention intervention (one study).ConclusionsLittle is known about the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving the NWE, and published studies on this topic show weaknesses in their design. To advance the field, we recommend that investigators use controlled studies with pre/post measures to evaluate interventions that are aimed at improving the NWE. Thereby, more evidence-based knowledge about the implementation of interventions will become available for healthcare leaders to use in rebuilding nursing work environments.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician burnout remains a prevalent issue globally, negatively affecting work satisfaction and patient care. However, exploration of the physical work environments of physicians, a potential influencing factor for burnout, remains scarce. The physical work environment is everything that surrounds the physician, including the doctor's office, the clinic, the clinic's building, the waiting, and staff rooms. The aims of this study were to describe aspects of the physical work environment of primary care physicians (PCPs) and to explore the association between the physical work environment and burnout.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we emailed questionnaires to an online community of PCPs in Israel in October 2021. We asked physicians about their satisfaction with their physical work environment, evaluated elements of the work environment, and assessed burnout status (with the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure, SMBM). We used the Chi-square and Mann-Witney tests to compare categorical and continuous variables and used logistic regression for the final model.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-one PCPs answered the questionnaire (27.6% response rate). Over a third (35.7%) of respondents reported high burnout. PCPs who were satisfied with their general physical environment had lower burnout rates than those who were unsatisfied (28.1% vs. 47.8%, p-value < 0.001). We found positive correlations between general satisfaction with the physical work environment and the scores achieved for the doctor's office, the clinic, the clinic's building, and the waiting room. In the multivariate analysis, high satisfaction with the general physical work environment was associated with decreased odds for burnout (OR-0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.99, p-value-0.048).ConclusionThe doctor's office, the clinic, the clinic's building, and the waiting room affected general satisfaction from the physical work environment. High satisfaction with the physical work environment reduced burnout rates. Future studies are needed to determine whether PCPs and managers should invest in the physical work environment to decrease burnout and increase satisfaction.

Dataset Information

Development of a short questionnaire based on the Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index in primary health care.

Publications

Development of a short questionnaire based on the Practice Environment Scale-Nursing Work Index in primary health care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets