Satisfacción laboral y factores de mejora en profesionales de atención primaria

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Fundamento. La calidad de los servicios en un sistema sanitario está relacionada con el nivel de satisfacción de sus profesionales. El objetivo de este trabajo es conocer la satisfacción laboral y jerarquizar aquellos factores capaces de mejorarla, en profesionales de atención primaria. Metodología. Estudio descriptivo realizado en 2010 en Navarra. Se remitió por correo un cuestionario validado a la población de estudio: médicos, pediatras y enfermería de atención primaria. Se recogen variables de datos sociodemográficos y autocalificación de su satisfacción laboral en escala de 1 a 10. Se solicita la jerarquización de 10 factores que puedan mejorar la satisfacción previa señalada. Se realizó comparación de medias y análisis bivariante mediante el test de la Chi cuadrado, estudiando la asociación entre variables mediante la Odds Ratio (OR). El análisis ajustado se realizó mediante regresión logística no condicional. Resultados. Se recogieron 432 cuestionarios (77,5%). La satisfacción media fue 6,7 (escala 1 a 10), más alta en enfermería. Las mujeres presentaron una media superior a los hombres (6,90: 6,34). Los trabajadores de centros de salud urbanos (OR:1,71; IC:1,10-2,65) presentaron un mayor riesgo de insatisfacción respecto a los profesionales de centros rurales. Las actividades formativas de los profesionales es el ítem más valorado, seguido de razones económicas y de presión asistencial, no encontrándose diferencias por profesión. Conclusión. La satisfacción laboral es una dimensión de la gestión de calidad en atención primaria y su estudio permite identificar problemas u oportunidades de mejora con impacto en la calidad de los servicios que se ofertan.

Translated abstract

Background. The quality of services in a health system is related to the level of satisfaction of its professionals. The aim of this article is to determine job satisfaction in primary care professionals and rank those factors capable of improving it. Methodology. Descriptive study carried out in Navarre in 2010. A validated questionnaire was sent by post to the population of the study: primary care doctors, pediatricians and nurses. Variables on socio-demographic data were collected and job satisfaction was self-evaluated on a scale of 1 to 10. Respondents were asked to rank 10 factors that could improve the previously mentioned satisfaction. Averages were compared and bivariate analysis was carried out using the chi-square test, studying the association between variables through the Odds Ratio (OR). The adjusted analysis was realized through unconditional logistic regression. Results. We collected 432 questionnaires (77.5%). Average satisfaction was 6.7 (scale of 1 to 10), higher in nursing. Women showed a higher average than men (6.90:6.34). The workers at urban health centers (OR: 1.71; CI: 1.10-2.65) showed a higher risk of dissatisfaction with respect to professionals at rural centers. The training activities of the professional is the most highly valued item, followed by economic questions and questions of care pressure, with no differences found by profession. Conclusion. Job satisfaction is a dimension of quality management in primary care and its study enables identification of problems or opportunities for improvement with an impact on the quality of the services offered.

Related collections

Most cited references 45

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effects of policy options for human resources for health: an analysis of systematic reviews.

Mickey Chopra, Salla Munro, John Lavis … (2008)

Policy makers face challenges to ensure an appropriate supply and distribution of trained health workers and to manage their performance in delivery of services, especially in countries with low and middle incomes. We aimed to identify all available policy options to address human resources for health in such countries, and to assess the effectiveness of these policy options. We searched Medline and Embase from 1979 to September, 2006, the Cochrane Library, and the Human Resources for Health Global Resource Center database. We also searched up to 10 years of archives from five relevant journals, and consulted experts. We included systematic reviews in English which assessed the effects of policy options that could affect the training, distribution, regulation, financing, management, organisation, or performance of health workers. Two reviewers independently assessed each review for eligibility and quality, and systematically extracted data about main effects. We also assessed whether the policy options were equitable in their effects; suitable for scaling up; and applicable to countries with low and middle incomes. 28 of the 759 systematic reviews of effects that we identified were eligible according to our criteria. Of these, only a few included studies from countries with low and middle incomes, and some reviews were of low quality. Most evidence focused on organisational mechanisms for human resources, such as substitution or shifting tasks between different types of health workers, or extension of their roles; performance-enhancing strategies such as quality improvement or continuing education strategies; promotion of teamwork; and changes to workflow. Of all policy options, the use of lay health workers had the greatest proportion of reviews in countries with a range of incomes, from high to low. We have identified a need for more systematic reviews on the effects of policy options to improve human resources for health in countries with low and middle incomes, for assessments of any interventions that policy makers introduce to plan and manage human resources for health, and for other research to aid policy makers in these countries.