Dataset Information

Mitigating Burnout in an Oncological Unit: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT: Objectives: The purpose of this study was to provide a scoping review on how to address and mitigate burnout in the profession of clinical oncology. Also, it examines how artificial intelligence (AI) can mitigate burnout in oncology. Methods: We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, for articles that examine how to address burnout in oncology. Results: A total of 17 studies were found to examine how burnout in oncology can be mitigated. These interventions were either targeted at individuals (oncologists) or organizations where the oncologists work. The organizational interventions include educational (psychosocial and mindfulness-based course), art therapies and entertainment, team-based training, group meetings, motivational package and reward, effective leadership and policy change, and staff support. The individual interventions include equipping the oncologists with adequate training that include—communication skills, well-being and stress management, burnout education, financial independence, relaxation, self-efficacy, resilience, hobby adoption, and work-life balance for the oncologists. Similarly, AI is thought to be poised to offer the potential to mitigate burnout in oncology by enhancing the productivity and performance of the oncologists, reduce the workload and provide job satisfaction, and foster teamwork between the caregivers of patients with cancer. Discussion: Burnout is common among oncologists and can be elicited from different types of situations encountered in the process of caring for patients with cancer. Therefore, for these interventions to achieve the touted benefits, combinatorial strategies that combine other interventions may be viable for mitigating burnout in oncology. With the potential of AI to mitigate burnout, it is important for healthcare providers to facilitate its use in daily clinical practices. Conclusion: These combinatorial interventions can ensure job satisfaction, a supportive working environment, job retention for oncologists, and improved patient care. These interventions could be integrated systematically into routine cancer care for a positive impact on quality care, patient satisfaction, the overall success of the oncological ward, and the health organizations at large.

SUBMITTER: Alabi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8517258 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo collate and synthesise available literature on burnout and compassion fatigue (CF) among organ and tissue donation coordinators (OTDCs) and to respond to the research question: what is known about burnout and CF among OTDCs worldwide?DesignScoping review using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews.Data sourcesMedline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, PTSpubs and grey literature (ResearchGate, OpenGrey, Organ Donation Organization (ODO) websites, open access theses and dissertations) up to April 2020.Study selectionStudies reporting aspects of burnout and CF among OTDCs, including risk and protective factors.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently screened the studies for eligibility and extracted data from chosen sources using a data extraction tool developed for this study; NVIVO was used to perform a qualitative directed content analysis.ResultsThe searches yielded 741 potentially relevant records, of which 29 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of articles were from the USA (n=7, 24%), Canada (n=6, 21%) and Brazil (n=6, 21%), published between 2013 and 2020 (n=13, 45%) in transplant journals (n=11, 38%) and used a qualitative design approach (n=12, 41%). In the thematic analysis, we classified the articles into five categories: (1) burnout characteristics, (2) CF characteristics, (3) coping strategies, (4) protective factors and (5) ambivalence.ConclusionWe identified aspects of burnout and CF among OTDCs, including defining characteristics, demographic predispositions, protective factors, coping strategies, precursors, consequences and personal ambivalences. Researchers described burnout and CF characteristics but did not use consistent terms when referring to CF and burnout, which may have hindered the identification of all relevant sources. This gap should be addressed by the application of consistent terminology, systematic approaches and appropriate research methods that combine quantitative and qualitative investigation to examine the underlying reasons for the development of burnout and CF among OTDCs.

Project description:Background:Physical rehabilitation (PR) interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patients' functional outcomes, yet systematic reviews identified discordant effects and poor reporting. We conducted a scoping review to determine the extent of ICU PR interventions and how they were reported and measured. Methods:We searched five databases from inception to December 2016 for prospective studies evaluating adult ICU PR interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion. We assessed completeness of reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, or Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, as appropriate. For planned PR interventions, we evaluated reporting with the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and assessed intervention and control groups separately. We calculated completeness of reporting scores for each study; scores represented the proportion of reported items. We compared reporting between groups using Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni corrections and t tests, ??=?0.05. Results:We screened 61,774 unique citations, reviewed 1429 full-text publications, and included 117: 39 randomized trials, 30 case series, 9 two-group comparison, 14 before-after, and 25 cohort. Interventions included neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) (14.5%), passive/active exercises (15.4%), cycling (6.8%), progressive mobility (32.5%), and multicomponent (29.9%). The median (first,third quartiles) study reporting score was 75.9% (62.5, 86.7) with no significant differences between reporting guidelines. Of 87 planned intervention studies, the median CERT score was 55.6%(44.7,75.0); cycling had the highest (85.0%(62.2,93.8)), and NMES and multicomponent the lowest (50.0% (39.5, 70.3) and 50.0% (41.5, 58.8), respectively) scores. Authors reported intervention groups better than controls (p?<?0.001). Conclusions:We identified important reporting deficiencies in ICU PR interventions, limiting clinical implementation and future trial development.

Project description:BackgroundTransitions of care between providers are vulnerable periods in healthcare delivery that expose patients to preventable errors and adverse events. Patient discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a medical or surgical hospital ward is one of the most challenging and high risk transitions of care. Approximately 1 in 12 patients discharged will be readmitted to ICU or die before leaving the hospital. Many more patients are exposed to unnecessary healthcare, adverse events and/or are disappointed with the quality of their care. Our objective is to conduct a scoping review by systematically searching the literature to identify ICU discharge planning tools and their supporting evidence-base including barriers and facilitators to their use.Methods and analysisSystematic searching of the published health literature will be conducted to identify the existing ICU discharge planning tools and supporting evidence. Literature (research and non-research) reporting on the tools used to facilitate decision making and/or communication at ICU discharge with patients of any age will be included. Outcomes will include adverse events and provider and patient/family-reported outcomes. Two investigators will independently review the abstracts (screen 1) to identify those meeting the inclusion criteria and then independently assess the full text articles (screen 2) to determine if they meet the inclusion criteria. Data collection will include information on citations and identified tools. A quality assessment will be performed on original research studies. A descriptive summary will be developed for each tool.Ethics and disseminationOur scoping review will synthesise the literature for ICU discharge planning tools and identify the opportunities for knowledge to action and gaps in evidence where primary evidence is necessary. This will serve as the foundational element in a multistep research programme to standardise and improve the quality of care provided to patients during ICU discharge. Ethics approval is not required for this study.

Project description:Objectives: The overall objectives of this rapid scoping review are to (a) identify the common triggers of stress, burnout, and depression faced by women in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (b) explore individual-, organizational-, and systems-level interventions that can support the well-being of women HCWs during a pandemic. Design: This scoping review is registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) and was guided by the JBI guide to scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension to scoping reviews. A systematic search of literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and ERIC) was conducted from inception until June 12, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria. Interventions: We included review articles and primary studies that reported on stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs; that primarily focused on women; and that included the percentage or number of women included. All English language studies from any geographical setting where COVID-19 has affected the population were reviewed. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Studies reporting on mental health outcomes (e.g., stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs), interventions to support mental health well-being were included. Results: Of the 2,803 papers found, 28 were included. The triggers of stress, burnout and depression are grouped under individual-, organizational-, and systems-level factors. There is a limited amount of evidence on effective interventions that prevents anxiety, stress, burnout and depression during a pandemic. Conclusions: Our preliminary findings show that women HCWs are at increased risk for stress, burnout, and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. These negative outcomes are triggered by individual level factors such as lack of social support; family status; organizational factors such as access to personal protective equipment or high workload; and systems-level factors such as prevalence of COVID-19, rapidly changing public health guidelines, and a lack of recognition at work.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinician health and retention.ObjectiveTo describe trends in burnout from 2019 through 2021 with associated mitigating and aggravating factors.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional surveys were sent to physicians and advanced practice clinicians throughout 120 large US health care organizations between February 2019 and December 2021. From 56 090 surveys, there were 20 627 respondents.ExposuresWork conditions and COVID-19.Main outcomes and measuresSurveys measured time pressure, chaos, work control, teamwork, electronic health record use, values alignment, satisfaction, burnout, intent to leave, and in 2021, feeling valued. Multivariate regressions controlling for gender, race and ethnicity, years in practice, and role determined burnout, satisfaction, and intent-to-leave correlates.ResultsOf the 20 627 respondents (median response rate, 58% [IQR, 34%-86%; difference, 52%]), 67% were physicians, 51% female, and 66% White. Burnout was 45% in 2019, 40% to 45% in early 2020, 50% in late 2020, and 60% in late 2021. Intent to leave increased from 24% in 2019 to more than 40% as job satisfaction decreased. Higher burnout was seen in chaotic workplaces (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.38-1.66; P < .001) and with low work control (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.91-2.30; P < .001). Higher burnout was associated with poor teamwork (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.78-2.43; P < .001), while feeling valued was associated with lower burnout (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18-0.27; P < .001). In time trends, burnout was consistently higher with chaos and poor work control. For example, in the fourth quarter of 2021 burnout was 36% (95% CI, 31%-42%) in calm environments vs 78% (95% CI, 73%-84%) if chaotic (absolute difference, 42%; 95% CI, 34%-49%; P < .001), and 39% (95% CI, 33%-44%) with good work control vs 75% (95% CI, 69%-81%) if poor (absolute difference, 36%; 95% CI, 27%-44%; P < .001). Good teamwork was associated with lower burnout rates (49%; 95% CI, 44%-54%) vs poor teamwork (88%; 95% CI, 80%-97%; absolute difference, 39%; 95% CI, 29%-48%; P < .001), as was feeling valued (37%; 95% CI, 31%-44%) vs not feeling valued (69%; 95% CI, 63%-74%; absolute difference, 32%; 95% CI, 22%-39%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this survey study show that in 2020 through 2021, burnout and intent to leave gradually increased, rose sharply in late 2021, and varied by chaos, work control, teamwork, and feeling valued. Monitoring these variables could provide mechanisms for worker protection.

Dataset Information

Mitigating Burnout in an Oncological Unit: A Scoping Review

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets