Dataset Information

Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals: A Delphi study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The work environment of healthcare professionals is important for good patient care and is receiving increasing attention in scientific research. A clear and unambiguous understanding of a positive work environment, as perceived by healthcare professionals, is crucial for gaining systematic objective insights into the work environment. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on the concept of a positive work environment in the hospital.

Methods

This was a three-round Delphi study to establish consensus on what defines a positive work environment. A literature review and 17 semi-structured interviews with experts (transcribed and analyzed by open and thematic coding) were used to generate items for the Delphi study.

Results

The literature review revealed 228 aspects that were clustered into 48 work environment elements, 38 of which were mentioned in the interviews also. After three Delphi rounds, 36 elements were regarded as belonging to a positive work environment in the hospital.

Discussion

The work environment is a broad concept with several perspectives. Although all 36 elements are considered important for a positive work environment, they have different perspectives. Mapping the included elements revealed that no one work environment measurement tool includes all the elements.

Conclusion

We identified 36 elements that are important for a positive work environment. This knowledge can be used to select the right measurement tool or to develop interventions for improving the work environment. However, the different perspectives of the work environment should be considered.

SUBMITTER: Maassen SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7906333 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals: A Delphi study.

Maassen Susanne M SM van Oostveen Catharina C Vermeulen Hester H Weggelaar Anne Marie AM

PloS one 20210225 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>The work environment of healthcare professionals is important for good patient care and is receiving increasing attention in scientific research. A clear and unambiguous understanding of a positive work environment, as perceived by healthcare professionals, is crucial for gaining systematic objective insights into the work environment. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on the concept of a positive work environment in the hospital.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a three-ro ...[more]

PMID: 33630923

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRetrospective trauma scores are often used to categorise trauma, however, they have little utility in the prehospital or hyper-acute setting and do not define major trauma to non-specialists. This study employed a Delphi process in order to gauge degrees of consensus/disagreement amongst expert panel members to define major trauma.MethodA two round modified Delphi technique was used to explore subject-expert consensus and identify variables to define major trauma through systematically collating questionnaire responses. After initial descriptive analysis of variables, Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in response to the Delphi statements between professional groups. A hierarchical cluster analysis was undertaken to identify patterns of similarity/difference of response. A grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis of data allowed for potentially multiple iterations of the Delphi process to be influenced by identified themes.ResultsOf 55 expert panel members invited to participate, round 1 had 43 participants (Doctor n = 20, Paramedic n = 20, Nurse n = 5, other n = 2). No consistent patterns of opinion emerged with regards to professional group. Cluster analysis identified three patterns of similar responses and coded as trauma minimisers, the middle ground and the risk averse. Round 2 had 35 respondents with minimum change in opinion between rounds. Consensus of > 70% was achieved on many variables which included the identification of life/limb threatening injuries, deranged physiology, need for intensive care interventions and that extremes of age need special consideration. It was also acknowledged that retrospective injury severity scoring has a role to play but is not the only method of defining major trauma. Various factors had a majority of agreement/disagreement but did not meet the pre-set criteria of 70% agreement. These included the topics of burns, spinal immobilisation and whether a major trauma centre is the only place where major trauma can be managed.ConclusionBased upon the output of this Delphi study, major trauma may be defined as: "Significant injury or injuries that have potential to be life-threatening or life-changing sustained from either high energy mechanisms or low energy mechanisms in those rendered vulnerable by extremes of age".

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pharmacists are uniquely placed in the community to be of assistance to disaster-affected patients. However, the roles undertaken by pharmacists in disasters are identified based on their own experiences and networks. There is currently no definition or acknowledgment of pharmacists' roles in disasters. OBJECTIVE:To acquire consensus from an expert panel of key opinion leaders within the field of disaster health on pharmacists' roles in disasters throughout the four disaster phases-prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. METHODS:A Delphi study consisting of three rounds of online surveys was utilised. Twenty-four key opinion leaders were contacted, with 15 completing all three rounds. The 15 expert panellists were presented with 46 roles identified in the literature and asked to rank their opinions on a 5-point Likert scale. This study used an international, all-hazard, and multijurisdictional approach. Consensus was benchmarked at 80% and any role which did not reach consensus was re-queried in the subsequent round. The third round provided the results of the Delphi study and sought commentary on the acceptance or rejection of the roles. RESULTS:Of the 46 roles provided to the expert panel, 43 roles were accepted as roles pharmacists are capable of undertaking in a disaster. There were five roles for the prevention phase, nine for the preparedness phase, 21 for the response phase, and eight for the recovery phase. The experts were asked to prioritise the top five roles for each of the disaster phases. The three roles which did not make consensus were deemed to be specialised roles for disaster pharmacists and not generalisable to the broader pharmacy profession. CONCLUSION:This study identifies pharmacists' roles in disasters which have been accepted by the international disaster health community. The international key opinion leaders recommended that pharmacists could be undertaking 43 roles in a disaster, however, this is dependent on individual jurisdiction considerations. Pharmacy professional associations need to advocate to policymakers for legislative support and to ensure pharmacists are equipped with the training and education required to undertake these roles within specific jurisdictions.

Dataset Information

Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals: A Delphi study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Publications

Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals: A Delphi study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets