Hui Grace Xu1, Amy N B Johnston2, Jaimi H Greenslade3, Marianne Wallis4, Elizabeth Elder5, Louisa Abraham6, Ogilvie Thom7, Eric Carlström8, Julia Crilly9. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Logan Hospital, Armstrong Rd & Loganlea Rd, Meadowbrook, Logan, Qld 4131, Australia; Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Qld, Australia; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Qld, Australia. Electronic address: grace.xu@health.qld.gov.au. 2. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Qld, Australia; Department of Emergency Medicine, Gold Coast Health, 1 Hospital Blvd, Southport, Qld 4215, Australia; Department of Emergency Medicine, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, the University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia. 3. Emergency and Trauma Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Bowen Bridge Rd, Herston, Qld 4029, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, Qld 4029, Australia. 4. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Qld, Australia; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Dr, Sippy Downs, Qld 4558, Australia. 5. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Qld, Australia; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Qld, Australia. 6. Emergency and Trauma Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Bowen Bridge Rd, Herston, Qld 4029, Australia. 7. Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, Qld 4029, Australia; Department of Emergency Medicine, Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Qld 4560, Australia. 8. Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden. 9. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Qld, Australia; Department of Emergency Medicine, Gold Coast Health, 1 Hospital Blvd, Southport, Qld 4215, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are stressful workplaces. Limited research explores components ED staff find stressful and how they cope. The aim of this study is to describe ED staff perceptions of their working environment. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken in 2017 in a public, teaching hospital ED situated in an outer-metropolitan low socio-economic area. ED doctors and nurses completed surveys exploring workplace stressors (the ED stressors tool), coping strategies (Jalowiec Coping Scale), and perceptions of the working environment (Working Environment Scale-10). Descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: A 40% response rate (161/400) was achieved. Staff reported high workload, moderate self-realisation, and low levels of conflict and nervousness. Heavy workload, poor skill-mix and overcrowding were ranked as high-stress, high-exposure (daily) events. The death or sexual abuse of a child and inability to provide optimal care were ranked highly stressful but infrequent. Coping strategies most often used included: trying to keep life as normal as possible (90%) and considering different ways to handle the situation (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Impacts of varying degrees of exposure of this young cohort of staff, with limited experience, to modifiable and non-modifiable stressors highlight site-specific opportunities to enhance staff perceptions of their working environment.
BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are stressful workplaces. Limited research explores components ED staff find stressful and how they cope. The aim of this study is to describe ED staff perceptions of their working environment. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken in 2017 in a public, teaching hospital ED situated in an outer-metropolitan low socio-economic area. ED doctors and nurses completed surveys exploring workplace stressors (the ED stressors tool), coping strategies (Jalowiec Coping Scale), and perceptions of the working environment (Working Environment Scale-10). Descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: A 40% response rate (161/400) was achieved. Staff reported high workload, moderate self-realisation, and low levels of conflict and nervousness. Heavy workload, poor skill-mix and overcrowding were ranked as high-stress, high-exposure (daily) events. The death or sexual abuse of a child and inability to provide optimal care were ranked highly stressful but infrequent. Coping strategies most often used included: trying to keep life as normal as possible (90%) and considering different ways to handle the situation (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Impacts of varying degrees of exposure of this young cohort of staff, with limited experience, to modifiable and non-modifiable stressors highlight site-specific opportunities to enhance staff perceptions of their working environment.
Authors: Kinga Witczak-Błoszyk; Karolina Krysińska; Karl Andriessen; Jacek Stańdo; Adam Czabański Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Pei-Yu Wang; Pin-Hui Fang; Chen-Long Wu; Hsiang-Chin Hsu; Chih-Hao Lin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jaimi H Greenslade; Marianne C Wallis; Amy Johnston; Eric Carlström; Daniel Wilhelms; Ogilvie Thom; Louisa Abraham; Julia Crilly Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 2.692