16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fulfillment, burnout and resilience in emergency medicine—Correlations and effects on patient and provider outcomes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Healthcare provider wellness have been reported to correlate with patient care outcomes. It is not understood whether synergistic effects may exist between them.

          Objective

          We aim to investigate three provider wellness markers and determine their associations with provider self-reported medical errors and intent-to-leave outcomes among Emergency Department (ED) providers.

          Design

          This is a multi-center retrospective study.

          Method

          Three wellness domains include professional fulfillment (PF), burnout (BO), and personal resilience (PR). Two outcomes measured as provider self-reported medical errors and provider intent-to-leave. Correlations between wellness markers and outcomes were analyzed. When adjusted for other confounders (provider demographics, provider experience, and operational environment), a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to further determine the interactions among these three domains on provider wellness affecting patient and provider related outcomes.

          Results

          Total 242 surveys were collected from providers at 16 different EDs. The median score of PF were 2.83 among physicians and 2.67 among APPs, BO were 1.00 (physicians) and 0.95 (APPs), and PR were 0.88 (physicians) and 0.81 (APPs). The median scores of self-reported medical errors were 1.50 (physicians) and 0.95 (APPs), and intent-to-leave were 1.00 (physicians and APPs). High correlations occurred among PF, BO, and PR. When analyzed together, high PF, low BO, and high PR functioned as a protective effect on provider intent-to-leave (adjusted odds ratios = 0.09, 95% CI 0.03–0.30).

          Conclusion

          High correlations occurred among three provider wellness markers with no significant difference between physicians and APPs. Providers with high PR, low BO, and high PR tended to be more stable in their jobs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques

          Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how ‘consensus’ is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of ‘experts.’ Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

            Objective Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. Methodology and Main Finding Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. Conclusion The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger.

              The authors report on the development and calibration of item banks for depression, anxiety, and anger as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). Comprehensive literature searches yielded an initial bank of 1,404 items from 305 instruments. After qualitative item analysis (including focus groups and cognitive interviewing), 168 items (56 for each construct) were written in a first person, past tense format with a 7-day time frame and five response options reflecting frequency. The calibration sample included nearly 15,000 respondents. Final banks of 28, 29, and 29 items were calibrated for depression, anxiety, and anger, respectively, using item response theory. Test information curves showed that the PROMIS item banks provided more information than conventional measures in a range of severity from approximately -1 to +3 standard deviations (with higher scores indicating greater distress). Short forms consisting of seven to eight items provided information comparable to legacy measures containing more items.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                19 October 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 10
                : e0240934
                Affiliations
                [001]Department of Emergency Medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas, Texas, United States of America
                Universitat de Valencia, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5105-0951
                Article
                PONE-D-20-11949
                10.1371/journal.pone.0240934
                7571699
                33075090
                e870feb5-94c7-4a92-beef-0ea4ee300399
                © 2020 Jyothindran et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 27 April 2020
                : 6 October 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Pages: 12
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Physicians
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Physicians
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Psychological Stress
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Stress
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Stress
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Anxiety
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Anxiety
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Questionnaires
                Engineering and Technology
                Measurement
                Custom metadata
                Data cannot be shared publicly because of special contract agreement with the third party. The authors of this study had no special access privileges in accessing the datasets which other interested researchers would not have. However, data might be available from the Integrative Emergency Service Data Access upon request to the Director of Physician Wellness, Dr. Jyothindran via jyothindran@ 123456bswhealth.org .

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content272

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors357