Cavanaugh Katelyn J, Lee Hwa Young, Daum Diane, Chang Shine, Izzo Julie G, Kowalski Alicia, Holladay Courtney L
Leadership Institute, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Cancer Prevention Training Program, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Healthcare (Basel). 2020 Nov 20;8(4):502. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8040502.
Burnout amongst healthcare employees is considered an epidemic; prior research indicates a host of associated negative consequences, though more research is needed to understand the predictors of burnout across healthcare employees. All employees in a cancer-focused academic healthcare institution were invited to participate in a bi-annual online confidential employee survey. A 72% response rate yielded 9979 complete responses. Participants completed demographic items, a validated single-item measure of burnout, and items measuring eight employee job attitudes toward their jobs and organization (agility, development, alignment, leadership, trust, resources, safety, and teamwork). Department-level characteristics, turnover, and vacancy were calculated for group level analyses. A univariate F test revealed differences in burnout level by department type ( (3, 9827) = 54.35, < 0.05) and post hoc Scheffe's tests showed employees in clinical departments reported more burnout than other departments. Hierarchical multiple regression revealed that employee demographic and job-related variables (including department type) explained 8% of the variance of burnout ( (19, 7880) = 37.95, < 0.001), and employee job attitudes explained an additional 27% of the variance of burnout ( (8, 7872) = 393.18, < 0.001). Relative weights analysis at the group level showed that, of the constructs measured, alignment is the strongest predictor of burnout, followed by trust and leadership. The relationships are inverse in nature, such that more alignment is related to less burnout. Turnover and vacancy rates did not predict group level burnout. The results reported here provide evidence supporting a shift in the focus of research and practice from detection to prevention of employee burnout and from individual-focused interventions to organization-wide interventions to prevent burnout.
医护人员的职业倦怠被视为一种流行病；先前的研究表明了一系列相关的负面后果，不过仍需要更多研究来了解全体医护人员职业倦怠的预测因素。一家专注于癌症治疗的学术性医疗机构邀请所有员工参加每两年一次的在线保密员工调查。72%的回复率产生了9979份完整回复。参与者完成了人口统计学项目、一项经过验证的职业倦怠单项测量指标，以及测量员工对工作和组织的八种工作态度（灵活性、发展、契合度、领导力、信任、资源、安全和团队合作）的项目。计算了部门层面的特征、人员流动率和空缺率，用于组间层面分析。单因素F检验显示，不同部门类型的职业倦怠水平存在差异（F(3, 9827) = 54.35, p < 0.05），事后的谢费检验表明，临床科室的员工报告的职业倦怠程度高于其他部门。分层多元回归显示，员工的人口统计学和与工作相关的变量（包括部门类型）解释了职业倦怠方差的8%（F(19, 7880) = 37.95, p < 0.001），员工的工作态度又解释了职业倦怠方差的另外27%（F(8, 7872) = 393.18, p < 0.001）。组间层面的相对权重分析表明，在所测量的构念中，契合度是职业倦怠最强的预测因素，其次是信任和领导力。这些关系本质上是反向的，即契合度越高，职业倦怠程度越低。人员流动率和空缺率并不能预测组间层面的职业倦怠。此处报告的结果提供了证据，支持将研究和实践的重点从职业倦怠的检测转向预防，以及从以个人为中心的干预措施转向全组织范围的干预措施以预防职业倦怠。
