Maassen Susanne M, Weggelaar Jansen Anne Marie J W, Brekelmans Gerard, Vermeulen Hester, van Oostveen Catharina J
Department of Quality & Patient Care, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Health Services Management & Organization, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50 (Bayle Building) Postbus 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2020 Nov 9;32(8):545-557. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa072.
Research shows that the professional healthcare working environment influences the quality of care, safety climate, productivity, and motivation, happiness, and health of staff. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to assess instruments that provide valid, reliable and succinct measures of health care professionals' work environment (WE) in hospitals.
Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL EBSCOhost and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception through December 2018.
Pre-defined eligibility criteria (written in English, original work-environment instrument for healthcare professionals and not a translation, describing psychometric properties as construct validity and reliability) were used to detect studies describing instruments developed to measure the working environment.
After screening 6397 titles and abstracts, we included 37 papers. Two reviewers independently assessed the 37 instruments on content and psychometric quality following the COSMIN guideline.
Our paper analysis revealed a diversity of items measured. The items were mapped into 48 elements on aspects of the healthcare professional's WE. Quality assessment also revealed a wide range of methodological flaws in all studies.
We found a large variety of instruments that measure the professional healthcare environment. Analysis uncovered content diversity and diverse methodological flaws in available instruments. Two succinct, interprofessional instruments scored best on psychometrical quality and are promising for the measurement of the working environment in hospitals. However, further psychometric validation and an evaluation of their content is recommended.
研究表明,专业医疗工作环境会影响护理质量、安全氛围、生产力以及员工的积极性、幸福感和健康状况。本系统文献综述的目的是评估能够有效、可靠且简洁地衡量医院中医疗专业人员工作环境(WE)的工具。
从数据库建立至2018年12月,我们系统检索了Embase、Medline Ovid、科学引文索引、考克兰中心对照试验注册库、护理学与健康领域数据库EBSCOhost以及谷歌学术。
使用预先定义的纳入标准(英文撰写、针对医疗专业人员的原创工作环境工具而非翻译版本、描述诸如结构效度和信度等心理测量特性)来筛选描述用于测量工作环境的工具的研究。
在筛选了6397篇标题和摘要后,我们纳入了37篇论文。两名评审员按照COSMIN指南独立评估了这37种工具的内容和心理测量质量。
我们的论文分析揭示了所测量项目的多样性。这些项目被映射到医疗专业人员工作环境方面的48个要素上。质量评估还揭示了所有研究中存在的广泛方法学缺陷。
我们发现了大量测量专业医疗环境的工具。分析发现现有工具存在内容多样性和各种方法学缺陷。两种简洁的跨专业工具在心理测量质量方面得分最高,有望用于测量医院的工作环境。然而,建议进一步进行心理测量验证并评估其内容。