J Bryan Sexton1,2, Stephanie P Schwartz3, Whitney A Chadwick4, Kyle J Rehder1,3, Jonathan Bae5, Joanna Bokovoy6, Keith Doram6, Wayne Sotile7, Kathryn C Adair1, Jochen Profit8. 1. Duke Patient Safety Center, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 3. Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Duke Children's Hospital and Health Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Palo Alto, California, USA. 5. Duke Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 6. Adventist Health, Roseville, California, USA. 7. The Sotile Center for Resilience, Davidson, North Carolina, USA. 8. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the resiliency of healthcare workers is a national imperative, driven in part by healthcare workers having minimal exposure to the skills and culture to achieve work-life balance (WLB). Regardless of current policies, healthcare workers feel compelled to work more and take less time to recover from work. Satisfaction with WLB has been measured, as has work-life conflict, but how frequently healthcare workers engage in specific WLB behaviours is rarely assessed. Measurement of behaviours may have advantages over measurement of perceptions; behaviours more accurately reflect WLB and can be targeted by leaders for improvement. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe a novel survey scale for evaluating work-life climate based on specific behavioural frequencies in healthcare workers.2. To evaluate the scale's psychometric properties and provide benchmarking data from a large healthcare system.3. To investigate associations between work-life climate, teamwork climate and safety climate. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study of US healthcare workers within a large healthcare system. RESULTS: 7923 of 9199 eligible healthcare workers across 325 work settings within 16 hospitals completed the survey in 2009 (86% response rate). The overall work-life climate scale internal consistency was Cronbach α=0.790. t-Tests of top versus bottom quartile work settings revealed that positive work-life climate was associated with better teamwork climate, safety climate and increased participation in safety leadership WalkRounds with feedback (p<0.001). Univariate analysis of variance demonstrated differences that varied significantly in WLB between healthcare worker role, hospitals and work setting. CONCLUSIONS: The work-life climate scale exhibits strong psychometric properties, elicits results that vary widely by work setting, discriminates between positive and negative workplace norms, and aligns well with other culture constructs that have been found to correlate with clinical outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Improving the resiliency of healthcare workers is a national imperative, driven in part by healthcare workers having minimal exposure to the skills and culture to achieve work-life balance (WLB). Regardless of current policies, healthcare workers feel compelled to work more and take less time to recover from work. Satisfaction with WLB has been measured, as has work-life conflict, but how frequently healthcare workers engage in specific WLB behaviours is rarely assessed. Measurement of behaviours may have advantages over measurement of perceptions; behaviours more accurately reflect WLB and can be targeted by leaders for improvement. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe a novel survey scale for evaluating work-life climate based on specific behavioural frequencies in healthcare workers.2. To evaluate the scale's psychometric properties and provide benchmarking data from a large healthcare system.3. To investigate associations between work-life climate, teamwork climate and safety climate. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study of US healthcare workers within a large healthcare system. RESULTS: 7923 of 9199 eligible healthcare workers across 325 work settings within 16 hospitals completed the survey in 2009 (86% response rate). The overall work-life climate scale internal consistency was Cronbach α=0.790. t-Tests of top versus bottom quartile work settings revealed that positive work-life climate was associated with better teamwork climate, safety climate and increased participation in safety leadership WalkRounds with feedback (p<0.001). Univariate analysis of variance demonstrated differences that varied significantly in WLB between healthcare worker role, hospitals and work setting. CONCLUSIONS: The work-life climate scale exhibits strong psychometric properties, elicits results that vary widely by work setting, discriminates between positive and negative workplace norms, and aligns well with other culture constructs that have been found to correlate with clinical outcomes. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Omar Hasan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: J Bryan Sexton; Sean M Berenholtz; Christine A Goeschel; Sam R Watson; Christine G Holzmueller; David A Thompson; Robert C Hyzy; Jill A Marsteller; Kathy Schumacher; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christian M Pettker; Stephen F Thung; Cheryl A Raab; Katie P Donohue; Joshua A Copel; Charles J Lockwood; Edmund F Funai Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: J Bryan Sexton; Paul J Sharek; Eric J Thomas; Jeffrey B Gould; Courtney C Nisbet; Amber B Amspoker; Mark A Kowalkowski; René Schwendimann; Jochen Profit Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Stefanie Mache; Monika Bernburg; Karin Vitzthum; David A Groneberg; Burghard F Klapp; Gerhard Danzer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: John B Sexton; Robert L Helmreich; Torsten B Neilands; Kathy Rowan; Keryn Vella; James Boyden; Peter R Roberts; Eric J Thomas Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2006-04-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Matthias Weigl; Severin Hornung; Peter Angerer; Johannes Siegrist; Jürgen Glaser Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Joyce L Neumann; Lih-Wen Mau; Sanya Virani; Ellen M Denzen; Deborah A Boyle; Nancy J Boyle; Jane Dabney; Alexandra De KeselLofthus; Marion Kalbacker; Tippu Khan; Navneet S Majhail; Elizabeth A Murphy; Pamela Paplham; Leslie Parran; Miguel-Angel Perales; Todd H Rockwood; Kim Schmit-Pokorny; Tait D Shanafelt; Elaine Stenstrup; William A Wood; Linda J Burns Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Henry E Rice; Randall Lou-Meda; Anthony T Saxton; Bria E Johnston; Carla C Ramirez; Sindy Mendez; Eli N Rice; Bernardo Aidar; Brad Taicher; Joy Noel Baumgartner; Judy Milne; Allan S Frankel; J Bryan Sexton Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2018-03-09
Authors: Heidrun Sturm; Monika A Rieger; Peter Martus; Esther Ueding; Anke Wagner; Martin Holderried; Jens Maschmann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J Bryan Sexton; Kathryn C Adair; Michael W Leonard; Terri Christensen Frankel; Joshua Proulx; Sam R Watson; Brooke Magnus; Brittany Bogan; Maleek Jamal; Rene Schwendimann; Allan S Frankel Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 7.418