Michelle P Salyers1,2, Kelsey A Bonfils3,4, Lauren Luther3,4, Ruth L Firmin3,4, Dominique A White3,4, Erin L Adams3,4, Angela L Rollins3,4,5. 1. Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 402 N. Blackford Street, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. mpsalyer@iupui.edu. 2. ACT Center of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, USA. mpsalyer@iupui.edu. 3. Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 402 N. Blackford Street, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. 4. ACT Center of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare provider burnout is considered a factor in quality of care, yet little is known about the consistency and magnitude of this relationship. This meta-analysis examined relationships between provider burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment) and the quality (perceived quality, patient satisfaction) and safety of healthcare. METHODS: Publications were identified through targeted literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses through March of 2015. Two coders extracted data to calculate effect sizes and potential moderators. We calculated Pearson's r for all independent relationships between burnout and quality measures, using a random effects model. Data were assessed for potential impact of study rigor, outliers, and publication bias. RESULTS: Eighty-two studies including 210,669 healthcare providers were included. Statistically significant negative relationships emerged between burnout and quality (r = -0.26, 95 % CI [-0.29, -0.23]) and safety (r = -0.23, 95 % CI [-0.28, -0.17]). In both cases, the negative relationship implied that greater burnout among healthcare providers was associated with poorer-quality healthcare and reduced safety for patients. Moderators for the quality relationship included dimension of burnout, unit of analysis, and quality data source. Moderators for the relationship between burnout and safety were safety indicator type, population, and country. Rigor of the study was not a significant moderator. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to systematically, quantitatively analyze the links between healthcare provider burnout and healthcare quality and safety across disciplines. Provider burnout shows consistent negative relationships with perceived quality (including patient satisfaction), quality indicators, and perceptions of safety. Though the effects are small to medium, the findings highlight the importance of effective burnout interventions for healthcare providers. Moderator analyses suggest contextual factors to consider for future study.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare provider burnout is considered a factor in quality of care, yet little is known about the consistency and magnitude of this relationship. This meta-analysis examined relationships between provider burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment) and the quality (perceived quality, patient satisfaction) and safety of healthcare. METHODS: Publications were identified through targeted literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses through March of 2015. Two coders extracted data to calculate effect sizes and potential moderators. We calculated Pearson's r for all independent relationships between burnout and quality measures, using a random effects model. Data were assessed for potential impact of study rigor, outliers, and publication bias. RESULTS: Eighty-two studies including 210,669 healthcare providers were included. Statistically significant negative relationships emerged between burnout and quality (r = -0.26, 95 % CI [-0.29, -0.23]) and safety (r = -0.23, 95 % CI [-0.28, -0.17]). In both cases, the negative relationship implied that greater burnout among healthcare providers was associated with poorer-quality healthcare and reduced safety for patients. Moderators for the quality relationship included dimension of burnout, unit of analysis, and quality data source. Moderators for the relationship between burnout and safety were safety indicator type, population, and country. Rigor of the study was not a significant moderator. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to systematically, quantitatively analyze the links between healthcare provider burnout and healthcare quality and safety across disciplines. Provider burnout shows consistent negative relationships with perceived quality (including patient satisfaction), quality indicators, and perceptions of safety. Though the effects are small to medium, the findings highlight the importance of effective burnout interventions for healthcare providers. Moderator analyses suggest contextual factors to consider for future study.
Entities:
Keywords:
burnout; healthcare outcomes; meta-analysis; quality of care
Authors: Niamh Humphries; Karen Morgan; Mary Catherine Conry; Yvonne McGowan; Anthony Montgomery; Hannah McGee Journal: Int J Health Care Qual Assur Date: 2014
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Linda H Aiken; Walter Sermeus; Koen Van den Heede; Douglas M Sloane; Reinhard Busse; Martin McKee; Luk Bruyneel; Anne Marie Rafferty; Peter Griffiths; Maria Teresa Moreno-Casbas; Carol Tishelman; Anne Scott; Tomasz Brzostek; Juha Kinnunen; Rene Schwendimann; Maud Heinen; Dimitris Zikos; Ingeborg Strømseng Sjetne; Herbert L Smith; Ann Kutney-Lee Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-03-20
Authors: Louise H Hall; Judith Johnson; Jane Heyhoe; Ian Watt; Kevin Anderson; Daryl B O'Connor Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Rebekah L Gardner; Emily Cooper; Jacqueline Haskell; Daniel A Harris; Sara Poplau; Philip J Kroth; Mark Linzer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kay Choong See; Ming Yan Zhao; Emiko Nakataki; Kaweesak Chittawatanarat; Wen-Feng Fang; Mohammad Omar Faruq; Bambang Wahjuprajitno; Yaseen M Arabi; Wai Tat Wong; Jigeeshu V Divatia; Jose Emmanuel Palo; Babu Raja Shrestha; Khalid M K Nafees; Nguyen Gia Binh; Hussain Nasser Al Rahma; Khamsay Detleuxay; Venetia Ong; Jason Phua Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Alison L Chetlen; Tiffany L Chan; David H Ballard; L Alexandre Frigini; Andrea Hildebrand; Shannon Kim; James M Brian; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Daniel S Tawfik; John Bryan Sexton; Kathryn C Adair; Heather C Kaplan; Jochen Profit Journal: Clin Perinatol Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 3.430