多学科医院工作人员工作环境评估。

Jane McCusker, Nandini Dendukuri, Linda Cardinal, Lilly Katofsky, Michael Riccardi
{"title":"多学科医院工作人员工作环境评估。","authors":"Jane McCusker, Nandini Dendukuri, Linda Cardinal, Lilly Katofsky, Michael Riccardi","doi":"10.1108/09526860510627229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to investigate the performance of scales to assess the work environment of hospital professional staff, other than nurses or physicians. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH A survey was conducted among professional (non-nursing or medical) staff at a 300-bed urban, university-affiliated Canadian hospital. A total of 24 work environment items were adapted from a scale previously validated among nursing staff. Scales were developed based on a principal components analysis, and were compared among four groups of staff. The relationships between the scales and the following measures were then explored using univariate and multivariate analyses: satisfaction with the work environment, perceived quality of patient care, perceived frequency of patient/family complaints, work-related injuries, and verbal abuse of staff. FINDINGS The survey response rate was 154/200 (76.6 percent). Four scales were identified (with corresponding Cronbach's alpha), assessing the following aspects of the work environment: supervisory support (0.88), team-work (0.84), professionalism (0.77), and interdisciplinary relations (0.64). In multivariate analyses, there were significant differences between the job groups in all four scales. One or more of the scales was significantly associated with overall satisfaction, perceived quality, and adverse incidents, even after adjustment for other staff characteristics. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS Limitations include: the cross-sectional design, subjective measurement of quality of care, small sample sizes in some groups of staff, and the single study site. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The scales developed in this study may be used by managers to assess hospital staff perceptions of the work environment. ORIGINALITY/VALUE The four proposed scales appear to measure meaningful aspects of the working environment that are important in determining overall satisfaction with the work environment and are related to quality of care.","PeriodicalId":80009,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health care quality assurance incorporating Leadership in health services","volume":"18 6-7","pages":"543-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/09526860510627229","citationCount":"38","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the work environment of multidisciplinary hospital staff.\",\"authors\":\"Jane McCusker, Nandini Dendukuri, Linda Cardinal, Lilly Katofsky, Michael Riccardi\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/09526860510627229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to investigate the performance of scales to assess the work environment of hospital professional staff, other than nurses or physicians. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH A survey was conducted among professional (non-nursing or medical) staff at a 300-bed urban, university-affiliated Canadian hospital. A total of 24 work environment items were adapted from a scale previously validated among nursing staff. Scales were developed based on a principal components analysis, and were compared among four groups of staff. The relationships between the scales and the following measures were then explored using univariate and multivariate analyses: satisfaction with the work environment, perceived quality of patient care, perceived frequency of patient/family complaints, work-related injuries, and verbal abuse of staff. FINDINGS The survey response rate was 154/200 (76.6 percent). Four scales were identified (with corresponding Cronbach's alpha), assessing the following aspects of the work environment: supervisory support (0.88), team-work (0.84), professionalism (0.77), and interdisciplinary relations (0.64). In multivariate analyses, there were significant differences between the job groups in all four scales. One or more of the scales was significantly associated with overall satisfaction, perceived quality, and adverse incidents, even after adjustment for other staff characteristics. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS Limitations include: the cross-sectional design, subjective measurement of quality of care, small sample sizes in some groups of staff, and the single study site. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The scales developed in this study may be used by managers to assess hospital staff perceptions of the work environment. ORIGINALITY/VALUE The four proposed scales appear to measure meaningful aspects of the working environment that are important in determining overall satisfaction with the work environment and are related to quality of care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80009,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of health care quality assurance incorporating Leadership in health services\",\"volume\":\"18 6-7\",\"pages\":\"543-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/09526860510627229\",\"citationCount\":\"38\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of health care quality assurance incorporating Leadership in health services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860510627229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health care quality assurance incorporating Leadership in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860510627229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是探讨用于评估医院专业人员(非护士或医生)工作环境的量表的性能。设计/方法/方法:在一家拥有300张床位的加拿大城市大学附属医院的专业(非护理或医疗)人员中进行了一项调查。共有24个工作环境项目改编自以前在护理人员中验证过的量表。根据主成分分析编制了量表,并在四组工作人员之间进行了比较。然后使用单变量和多变量分析来探讨量表与以下措施之间的关系:对工作环境的满意度,对患者护理质量的感知,对患者/家属投诉的感知频率,工伤和对员工的言语虐待。结果:调查回复率为154/200(76.6%)。确定了四个量表(使用相应的Cronbach's alpha),评估工作环境的以下方面:主管支持(0.88),团队合作(0.84),专业精神(0.77)和跨学科关系(0.64)。在多变量分析中,工作组在四个量表上均存在显著差异。一个或多个量表与总体满意度、感知质量和不良事件显著相关,即使在对其他员工特征进行调整后也是如此。研究局限性/启示:局限性包括:横断面设计、护理质量的主观测量、某些工作人员群体的样本量小、研究地点单一。实际意义:本研究开发的量表可被管理人员用于评估医院员工对工作环境的看法。原创性/价值:这四个拟议的量表似乎衡量了工作环境中有意义的方面,这些方面在决定对工作环境的总体满意度方面很重要,并且与护理质量有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of the work environment of multidisciplinary hospital staff.
PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to investigate the performance of scales to assess the work environment of hospital professional staff, other than nurses or physicians. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH A survey was conducted among professional (non-nursing or medical) staff at a 300-bed urban, university-affiliated Canadian hospital. A total of 24 work environment items were adapted from a scale previously validated among nursing staff. Scales were developed based on a principal components analysis, and were compared among four groups of staff. The relationships between the scales and the following measures were then explored using univariate and multivariate analyses: satisfaction with the work environment, perceived quality of patient care, perceived frequency of patient/family complaints, work-related injuries, and verbal abuse of staff. FINDINGS The survey response rate was 154/200 (76.6 percent). Four scales were identified (with corresponding Cronbach's alpha), assessing the following aspects of the work environment: supervisory support (0.88), team-work (0.84), professionalism (0.77), and interdisciplinary relations (0.64). In multivariate analyses, there were significant differences between the job groups in all four scales. One or more of the scales was significantly associated with overall satisfaction, perceived quality, and adverse incidents, even after adjustment for other staff characteristics. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS Limitations include: the cross-sectional design, subjective measurement of quality of care, small sample sizes in some groups of staff, and the single study site. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The scales developed in this study may be used by managers to assess hospital staff perceptions of the work environment. ORIGINALITY/VALUE The four proposed scales appear to measure meaningful aspects of the working environment that are important in determining overall satisfaction with the work environment and are related to quality of care.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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