| Literature DB >> 31500624 |
Monica Kaltenbrunner1, Lars Bengtsson2, Svend Erik Mathiassen3, Hans Högberg4, Maria Engström4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lean is commonly adopted in healthcare to increase quality of care and efficiency. Few studies of Lean involve staff-related outcomes, and few have a longitudinal design. Thus, the aim was to examine the extent to which changes over time in Lean maturity are associated with changes over time in care-giving, thriving and exhaustion, as perceived by staff, with a particular emphasis on the extent to which job demands and job resources, as perceived by staff, have a moderated mediation effect.Entities:
Keywords: COPSOQ; Exhaustion; JD-R theory; LiHcQ Lean in healthcare questionnaire; Linear mixed model; Quality of care; Thriving
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31500624 PMCID: PMC6734292 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4502-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Model of the hypothesized pathways between Lean maturity, working conditions as moderating mediators, and the three outcomes, which in H1 were staff satisfaction with care, in H2, thriving and in H3, exhaustion
Flowchart of eligible staff members and participants
T1 First data collection (2015), T2 Second data collection (2016)
Participant characteristics
|
| % |
| % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of participants, n | 481 | 260 | ||
| Participants at public non-profit, n | 407 | 85% | 216 | 83% |
| Privately owned healthcare units, n | 74 | 15% | 44 | 17% |
| Women, n | 422 | 88% | 224 | 86% |
| Men, n | 59 | 12% | 35 | 13% |
| Profession, n | ||||
| -Registered Nurses | 181 | 38% | 101 | 39% |
| -Physician | 70 | 15% | 37 | 14% |
| -Administrator and secretary | 64 | 13% | 31 | 12% |
| -Physiotherapist | 47 | 10% | 30 | 12% |
| -Licensed Practical Nurse | 45 | 9% | 24 | 9% |
| -Social worker and psychologist | 41 | 9% | 21 | 8% |
| -Manager | 26 | 5% | 17 | 7% |
| -Occupational therapist | 17 | 4% | 8 | 3% |
| -Dietician | 3 | 1% | 1 | < 1% |
| Age, | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 50.2 (10.3) | 50.6 (10.0) | ||
| Md (Q1−Q3) | 52.0 (44.0–59.0) | 53.0 (44.0–59.0) | ||
| Years worked at the present unit, | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 9.1 (9.0) | 9.3 (8.7) | ||
| Md (Q1−Q3) | 5.0 (2.0–14.0) | 5.0 (3.0–14.0) | ||
| Years worked in the profession, | ||||
| Mean (SD) | 21.5 (12.1) | 22.0 (11.8) | ||
| Md (Q1−Q3) | 21.0 (11.0–31.0) | 20.0 (13.0–32.0) | ||
T1, data collection time 1; T2, data collection time 2; Md median; Q1-Q3, quartiles; SD standard deviation. Concerning participants in different professions, the numbers do not add up to 481 or 260 because some participants had multiple functions.
Scales included in the job demands and job resources indices. Items were adopted from COPSOQ II [49]
| Scales included | |
|---|---|
| Job Demands | Quantitative demands, (four items), |
| Work pace (three items) | |
| Emotional demands (four items) | |
| Cognitive demands (four items) | |
| Role conflicts (four items) | |
| Job Resources | Influence (four items) |
| Possibilities for development (four items) | |
| Quality of leadership (four items) | |
| Social support from colleagues (three items) | |
| Social support from supervisors (three items) | |
| Predictability (two items) | |
| Recognition (three items) | |
| Role clarity (three items) | |
| Mutual trust between employees (three items) | |
| Variation (two items) |
ICC values for all three outcome variables and their associated mediators
| Only outcome, no covariates | With all the covariatesa | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Job resources | 0.146 | 0.082 |
|
| 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Job resources | 0.146 | 0.075 |
|
| 0.034 | 0.026 |
| Job demands | 0.043 | 0.040 |
ICC intra-class correlation coefficient, SSC staff satisfaction with care
aThe variables included in the model involving SSC were demands, gender and time. The variables included in the model involving thriving were demands, years worked in the profession and time. The variables included in the model involving exhaustion were resources, years worked in the profession and time
Fig. 2Direct (c’) and indirect effects (estimated by a*b) of the predictor Lean on the outcome variable staff satisfaction with care, mediated by job resources. Effects for covariates are shown below the figure. Within brackets, 95% confidence interval on the effect sizes
Fig. 3Direct (c’) and indirect effects (estimated by a*b) of the predictor Lean on the outcome variable thriving, mediated by job resources. Effects for covariates are shown below the figure. Within brackets, 95% confidence interval on the effect sizes
Fig. 4Direct (c’) and indirect effects (estimated by a*b) of the predictor Lean on the outcome variable exhaustion, mediated by job demands. Effects for covariates are shown below the figure. Within brackets, 95% confidence interval on the effect sizes