van Beuzekom Martie, Akerboom Simone, Boer Fredrik, Dahan Albert
Department of Anaesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2013 May;30(5):222-8. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32835d2db2.
Current thinking about patient safety emphasises the causal relationship between working conditions, referred to as latent risk factors (LRFs), and the quality of clinical care.
To investigate the extent to which LRFs are related to job satisfaction, job stress and intention to leave for specialist anaesthetists, trainee anaesthetists and nurse anaesthetists. We expected the different members of the anaesthesia team to show differing perceptions of LRFs, and differences in predictive LRFs for well-being.
Cross-sectional survey.
Three university hospitals in the Netherlands.
One hundred and nine specialist anaesthetists, 46 trainee anaesthetists and 115 nurse anaesthetists.
LRFs were measured as independent variables. Job satisfaction, job stress and intention to leave were measured as dependent variables. The differences between groups on LRFs, job satisfaction, job stress and intention to leave were analysed using one-way analysis of variance. The contribution of outcomes and LRFs were tested by regression analyses.
The overall response rate was 62%. More than 60% of the professionals reported unfavourably on access to information and quality of procedures. Nurse anaesthetists reported more problems for every LRF than specialist anaesthetists and trainee anaesthetists. LRFs accounted for a significant proportion of variance in job satisfaction: 63% in specialist anaesthetists, 55% in trainee anaesthetists and 42% in nurse anaesthetists. LRFs also explained important parts of the variance in intention to leave in specialist anaesthetists (41%) and nurse anaesthetists (21%). LRFs accounted for a significant proportion of variance in stress: 25% in specialist anaesthetists and 22% in nurse anaesthetists. Only working hours was a predictor of stress in trainee anaesthetists (22%).
LRFs are important correlates of the well-being of anaesthesia staff. Important differences between the different members of the anaesthesia team emerged in the set of LRFs that affect their well-being. These differences should be taken into account both in research and intervention projects.
当前关于患者安全的观点强调工作条件（即潜在风险因素，LRFs）与临床护理质量之间的因果关系。
调查潜在风险因素与专科麻醉医生、实习麻醉医生和麻醉护士的工作满意度、工作压力及离职意愿之间的关联程度。我们预计麻醉团队的不同成员对潜在风险因素的认知存在差异，且对幸福安康的潜在风险因素预测也有所不同。
横断面调查。
荷兰的三家大学医院。
109名专科麻醉医生、46名实习麻醉医生和115名麻醉护士。
潜在风险因素作为自变量进行测量。工作满意度、工作压力和离职意愿作为因变量进行测量。使用单因素方差分析来分析不同组在潜在风险因素、工作满意度、工作压力和离职意愿方面的差异。通过回归分析来检验结果和潜在风险因素的作用。
总体回复率为62%。超过60%的专业人员对信息获取和程序质量给出了负面评价。与专科麻醉医生和实习麻醉医生相比，麻醉护士报告的每项潜在风险因素问题更多。潜在风险因素在工作满意度的方差中占很大比例：专科麻醉医生中占63%，实习麻醉医生中占55%，麻醉护士中占42%。潜在风险因素还解释了专科麻醉医生（41%）和麻醉护士（21%）离职意愿方差的重要部分。潜在风险因素在压力方差中占很大比例：专科麻醉医生中占25%，麻醉护士中占22%。只有工作时长是实习麻醉医生压力的预测因素（22%）。
潜在风险因素是麻醉工作人员幸福安康的重要相关因素。在影响麻醉团队不同成员幸福安康的潜在风险因素方面出现了重要差异。在研究和干预项目中都应考虑到这些差异。
