Gilles Ingrid, Mayer Mauro, Courvoisier Nelly, Peytremann-Bridevaux Isabelle
University Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 15;12(3):e0173950. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173950. eCollection 2017.
To obtain a comprehensive understanding of the job opinions of hospital professionals by conducting qualitative analyses of the open comments included in a job satisfaction survey and combining these results with the quantitative results.
A cross-sectional survey targeting all Lausanne University Hospital professionals was performed in the fall of 2013.
The survey considered ten job satisfaction dimensions (e.g. self-fulfilment, workload, management, work-related burnout, organisational commitment, intent to stay) and included an open comment section. Computer-assisted qualitative analyses were conducted on these comments. Satisfaction rates on the included dimensions and professional groups were entered as predictive variables in the qualitative analyses.
Of 10 838 hospital professionals, 4978 participated in the survey and 1067 provided open comments. Data from 1045 respondents with usable comments constituted the analytic sample (133 physicians, 393 nurses, 135 laboratory technicians, 247 administrative staff, including researchers, 67 logistic staff, 44 psycho-social workers, and 26 unspecified).
Almost a third of the comments addressed scheduling issues, mostly related to problems and exhaustion linked to shifts, work-life balance, and difficulties with colleagues' absences and the consequences for quality of care and patient safety. The other two-thirds related to classic themes included in job satisfaction surveys. Although some comments were provided equally by all professional groups, others were group specific: work and hierarchy pressures for physicians, healthcare quality and patient safety for nurses, skill recognition for administrative staff. Overall, respondents' comments were consistent with their job satisfaction ratings.
Open comment analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of hospital professionals' job experiences, allowing better consideration of quality initiatives that match the needs of professionals with reality.
通过对工作满意度调查中开放式意见进行定性分析，并将这些结果与定量结果相结合，全面了解医院专业人员的工作意见。
2013年秋季对洛桑大学医院所有专业人员进行了横断面调查。
该调查考虑了十个工作满意度维度（如自我实现、工作量、管理、工作倦怠、组织承诺、留任意向），并设有开放式意见部分。对这些意见进行了计算机辅助定性分析。将所涉维度和专业组的满意度评分作为定性分析中的预测变量输入。
10838名医院专业人员中，4978人参与了调查，1067人提供了开放式意见。来自1045名有可用意见的受访者的数据构成了分析样本（133名医生、393名护士、135名实验室技术人员、247名行政人员，包括研究人员、67名后勤人员、44名心理社会工作者和26名未明确的人员）。
近三分之一的意见涉及排班问题，主要与轮班相关的问题和疲惫、工作与生活平衡以及同事缺勤带来的困难及其对护理质量和患者安全的影响有关。另外三分之二与工作满意度调查中包含的经典主题相关。虽然有些意见是所有专业组都同样提出的，但其他一些意见则具有组特异性：医生面临工作和等级压力，护士关注医疗质量和患者安全，行政人员在意技能认可。总体而言，受访者的意见与他们的工作满意度评分一致。
开放式意见分析能全面了解医院专业人员的工作经历，有助于更好地考虑使质量改进措施与专业人员需求和实际情况相匹配。
