Jochen Profit1,2, Kathryn C Adair3,4, Xin Cui1,2, Briana Mitchell1, Debra Brandon5,6, Daniel S Tawfik7, Joseph Rigdon8, Jeffrey B Gould1,2, Henry C Lee1,2, Wendy L Timpson9, Martin J McCaffrey10, Alexis S Davis1, Mohan Pammi11, Melissa Matthews12, Ann R Stark13, Lu-Ann Papile14, Eric Thomas15, Michael Cotten16, Amir Khan14, J Bryan Sexton17,18. 1. Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 2. California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Duke Center for Healthcare Safety and Quality, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA. 7. Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 8. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 9. Department of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine and University of North Carolina Children's Hospital, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 11. Section of Neonatology, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 12. Department of Pediatrics-Neonatology, The University of Texas Health Science Center and Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 13. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 14. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, The University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 15. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center and Memorial Hermann Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. 16. Division of Pediatrics-Neonatology, Duke University School of Medicine and Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA. 17. Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA. Bryan.Sexton@Duke.edu. 18. Duke Center for Healthcare Safety and Quality, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA. Bryan.Sexton@Duke.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Test web-based implementation for the science of enhancing resilience (WISER) intervention efficacy in reducing healthcare worker (HCW) burnout. DESIGN: RCT using two cohorts of HCWs of four NICUs each, to improve HCW well-being (primary outcome: burnout). Cohort 1 received WISER while Cohort 2 acted as a waitlist control. RESULTS: Cohorts were similar, mostly female (83%) and nurses (62%). In Cohorts 1 and 2 respectively, 182 and 299 initiated WISER, 100 and 176 completed 1-month follow-up, and 78 and 146 completed 6-month follow-up. Relative to control, WISER decreased burnout (-5.27 (95% CI: -10.44, -0.10), p = 0.046). Combined adjusted cohort results at 1-month showed that the percentage of HCWs reporting concerning outcomes was significantly decreased for burnout (-6.3% (95%CI: -11.6%, -1.0%); p = 0.008), and secondary outcomes depression (-5.2% (95%CI: -10.8, -0.4); p = 0.022) and work-life integration (-11.8% (95%CI: -17.9, -6.1); p < 0.001). Improvements endured at 6 months. CONCLUSION:WISER appears to durably improve HCW well-being. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT02603133; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02603133.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Test web-based implementation for the science of enhancing resilience (WISER) intervention efficacy in reducing healthcare worker (HCW) burnout. DESIGN: RCT using two cohorts of HCWs of four NICUs each, to improve HCW well-being (primary outcome: burnout). Cohort 1 received WISER while Cohort 2 acted as a waitlist control. RESULTS: Cohorts were similar, mostly female (83%) and nurses (62%). In Cohorts 1 and 2 respectively, 182 and 299 initiated WISER, 100 and 176 completed 1-month follow-up, and 78 and 146 completed 6-month follow-up. Relative to control, WISER decreased burnout (-5.27 (95% CI: -10.44, -0.10), p = 0.046). Combined adjusted cohort results at 1-month showed that the percentage of HCWs reporting concerning outcomes was significantly decreased for burnout (-6.3% (95%CI: -11.6%, -1.0%); p = 0.008), and secondary outcomes depression (-5.2% (95%CI: -10.8, -0.4); p = 0.022) and work-life integration (-11.8% (95%CI: -17.9, -6.1); p < 0.001). Improvements endured at 6 months. CONCLUSION: WISER appears to durably improve HCW well-being. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT02603133; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02603133.
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Colin P West; Jeff A Sloan; Paul J Novotny; Greg A Poland; Ron Menaker; Teresa A Rummans; Lotte N Dyrbye Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-05-25
Authors: Jochen Profit; Paul J Sharek; Amber B Amspoker; Mark A Kowalkowski; Courtney C Nisbet; Eric J Thomas; Whitney A Chadwick; J Bryan Sexton Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Margo M C van Mol; Erwin J O Kompanje; Dominique D Benoit; Jan Bakker; Marjan D Nijkamp Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sangeeta P Joshi; An-Kwok Ian Wong; Amanda Brucker; Taylor A Ardito; Shein-Chung Chow; Sandeep Vaishnavi; Patty J Lee Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-09-01