急诊科可持续工作条件的关键因素:EUSEM 发起的全欧洲共识调查。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Matthias Weigl, Michael Lifschitz, Christoph Dodt
{"title":"急诊科可持续工作条件的关键因素:EUSEM 发起的全欧洲共识调查。","authors":"Matthias Weigl, Michael Lifschitz, Christoph Dodt","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Modern emergency medicine (EM) is a complex, demanding, and occasionally stressful field of work. Working conditions, provider well-being, and associated health and performance outcomes are key factors influencing the establishment of a sustainable emergency department (ED) working environment.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This multinational European Delphi survey aimed to identify unequivocal major factors for good and poor ED working conditions and their possible effects on health care provider well-being.</p><p><strong>Design/setting and participants: </strong>A total of 18 experts from six European countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Romania, and the UK) covering three different hospital sizes (small, medium, and large) in their respective countries participated in the two-round Delphi survey. All panelists held leadership roles in EM.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and analysis: </strong>The first step involved conducting an extensive literature search on ED working conditions. The second step involved the first Delphi round, which consisted of structured interviews with the panelists. The survey was designed to obtain information concerning important working conditions, comments regarding work-life factors identified from the literature, and ratings of their importance. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a standardized protocol. In the second Delphi round, experts rated the relevance of items consolidated from the first Delphi round (classified into ED work system factors, provider health outcomes, and ED work-life intervention approaches).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A nearly unequivocal consensus was obtained in four ED work condition categories, including positive (e.g. job challenges, personal motivation, and case complexities) and negative (e.g. overcrowding, workflow interruptions/multitasking, medical errors) ED work conditions. The highly relevant adverse personal health events identified included physical fatigue, exhaustion, and burnout. Concerning intervention practices, the panelists offered a wide spectrum of opportunities with less consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Work system conditions exert positive and negative effects on the work life of ED providers across Europe. Although most European countries have varying health care systems, the expert-based survey results presented herein strongly suggest that improvement strategies should focus on system-related external stressors common in various countries. Our findings lay the scientific groundwork for future intervention studies at the local and systemic levels to improve ED provider work life.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Key factors for sustainable working conditions in emergency departments: an EUSEM-initiated, Europe-wide consensus survey.\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Weigl, Michael Lifschitz, Christoph Dodt\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Modern emergency medicine (EM) is a complex, demanding, and occasionally stressful field of work. Working conditions, provider well-being, and associated health and performance outcomes are key factors influencing the establishment of a sustainable emergency department (ED) working environment.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This multinational European Delphi survey aimed to identify unequivocal major factors for good and poor ED working conditions and their possible effects on health care provider well-being.</p><p><strong>Design/setting and participants: </strong>A total of 18 experts from six European countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Romania, and the UK) covering three different hospital sizes (small, medium, and large) in their respective countries participated in the two-round Delphi survey. All panelists held leadership roles in EM.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures and analysis: </strong>The first step involved conducting an extensive literature search on ED working conditions. The second step involved the first Delphi round, which consisted of structured interviews with the panelists. The survey was designed to obtain information concerning important working conditions, comments regarding work-life factors identified from the literature, and ratings of their importance. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a standardized protocol. In the second Delphi round, experts rated the relevance of items consolidated from the first Delphi round (classified into ED work system factors, provider health outcomes, and ED work-life intervention approaches).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A nearly unequivocal consensus was obtained in four ED work condition categories, including positive (e.g. job challenges, personal motivation, and case complexities) and negative (e.g. overcrowding, workflow interruptions/multitasking, medical errors) ED work conditions. The highly relevant adverse personal health events identified included physical fatigue, exhaustion, and burnout. Concerning intervention practices, the panelists offered a wide spectrum of opportunities with less consensus.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Work system conditions exert positive and negative effects on the work life of ED providers across Europe. Although most European countries have varying health care systems, the expert-based survey results presented herein strongly suggest that improvement strategies should focus on system-related external stressors common in various countries. Our findings lay the scientific groundwork for future intervention studies at the local and systemic levels to improve ED provider work life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001159\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001159","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和重要性:现代急诊医学(EM)是一个复杂、要求高、有时压力大的工作领域。工作条件、医护人员的福祉以及相关的健康和绩效成果是影响建立可持续急诊科(ED)工作环境的关键因素:这项欧洲多国德尔菲调查旨在明确指出急诊科工作条件好坏的主要因素,以及这些因素对医疗服务提供者福祉可能产生的影响:共有来自 6 个欧洲国家(比利时、芬兰、德国、意大利、罗马尼亚和英国)的 18 位专家参加了两轮德尔菲调查,他们分别来自各自国家的 3 家不同规模的医院(小型、中型和大型医院)。所有小组成员均在急救领域担任领导职务:第一步是对急诊室工作条件进行广泛的文献检索。第二步是第一轮德尔菲调查,包括对专家组成员进行结构化访谈。调查旨在获取有关重要工作条件的信息、对文献中确定的工作与生活因素的评论以及对其重要性的评分。访谈内容按照标准化协议进行誊写和分析。在第二轮德尔菲讨论中,专家们对第一轮德尔菲讨论(分为急诊科工作系统因素、医疗服务提供者健康结果和急诊科工作与生活干预方法)中合并的项目进行了相关性评分:结果:在四个急诊室工作条件类别中几乎达成了明确的共识,包括积极的(如工作挑战、个人动力和病例复杂性)和消极的(如过度拥挤、工作流程中断/多重任务、医疗事故)急诊室工作条件。与个人健康高度相关的不良事件包括身体疲劳、精疲力竭和职业倦怠。关于干预措施,专家小组成员提供了广泛的机会,但共识较少:结论:欧洲各地的工作系统条件对急诊室医护人员的工作生活产生了积极和消极的影响。虽然大多数欧洲国家的医疗保健系统各不相同,但本文所介绍的基于专家的调查结果强烈建议,改进策略应侧重于各国常见的与系统相关的外部压力因素。我们的研究结果为今后在地方和系统层面开展干预研究以改善急诊室医护人员的工作生活奠定了科学基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Key factors for sustainable working conditions in emergency departments: an EUSEM-initiated, Europe-wide consensus survey.

Background and importance: Modern emergency medicine (EM) is a complex, demanding, and occasionally stressful field of work. Working conditions, provider well-being, and associated health and performance outcomes are key factors influencing the establishment of a sustainable emergency department (ED) working environment.

Objectives: This multinational European Delphi survey aimed to identify unequivocal major factors for good and poor ED working conditions and their possible effects on health care provider well-being.

Design/setting and participants: A total of 18 experts from six European countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Romania, and the UK) covering three different hospital sizes (small, medium, and large) in their respective countries participated in the two-round Delphi survey. All panelists held leadership roles in EM.

Outcome measures and analysis: The first step involved conducting an extensive literature search on ED working conditions. The second step involved the first Delphi round, which consisted of structured interviews with the panelists. The survey was designed to obtain information concerning important working conditions, comments regarding work-life factors identified from the literature, and ratings of their importance. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed following a standardized protocol. In the second Delphi round, experts rated the relevance of items consolidated from the first Delphi round (classified into ED work system factors, provider health outcomes, and ED work-life intervention approaches).

Results: A nearly unequivocal consensus was obtained in four ED work condition categories, including positive (e.g. job challenges, personal motivation, and case complexities) and negative (e.g. overcrowding, workflow interruptions/multitasking, medical errors) ED work conditions. The highly relevant adverse personal health events identified included physical fatigue, exhaustion, and burnout. Concerning intervention practices, the panelists offered a wide spectrum of opportunities with less consensus.

Conclusion: Work system conditions exert positive and negative effects on the work life of ED providers across Europe. Although most European countries have varying health care systems, the expert-based survey results presented herein strongly suggest that improvement strategies should focus on system-related external stressors common in various countries. Our findings lay the scientific groundwork for future intervention studies at the local and systemic levels to improve ED provider work life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信