BackgroundPromoting patient and occupational safety are two key challenges for hospitals. When aiming to improve these two outcomes synergistically, psychosocial working conditions, leadership by hospital management and supervisors, and perceptions of patient and occupational safety climate have to be considered. Recent studies have shown that these key topics are interrelated and form a critical foundation for promoting patient and occupational safety in hospitals. So far, these topics have mainly been studied independently from each other. The present study investigated hospital staffs’ perceptions of four different topics: (1) psychosocial working conditions, (2) leadership, (3) patient safety climate, and (4) occupational safety climate. We present results from a survey in two German university hospitals aiming to detect differences between nurses and physicians.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study using a standardized paper-based questionnaire. The survey was conducted with nurses and physicians to assess the four topics. The instruments mainly consisted of scales of the German version of the COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire), one scale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), scales to assess leadership and transformational leadership, scales to assess patient safety climate using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC), and analogous items to assess occupational safety climate.ResultsA total of 995 completed questionnaires out of 2512 distributed questionnaires were returned anonymously. The overall response rate was 39.6%. The sample consisted of 381 physicians and 567 nurses. We found various differences with regard to the four topics. In most of the COPSOQ and the HSPSC-scales, physicians rated psychosocial working conditions and patient safety climate more positively than nurses. With regard to occupational safety, nurses indicated higher occupational risks than physicians.ConclusionsThe WorkSafeMed study combined the assessment of the four topics psychosocial working conditions, leadership, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate in hospitals. Looking at the four topics provides an overview of where improvements in hospitals may be needed for nurses and physicians. Based on these results, improvements in working conditions, patient safety climate, and occupational safety climate are required for health care professionals in German university hospitals – especially for nurses.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3862-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundWorkload and demands on hospital staff have been growing over recent years. To ensure patient and occupational safety, hospitals increasingly survey staff about perceived working conditions and safety culture. At the same time, routine data are used to manage resources and performance. This study aims to understand the relation between survey-derived measures of how staff perceive their work-related stress and strain and patient safety on the one hand, and routine data measures of workload and quality of care (patient safety) on the other.MethodsWe administered a written questionnaire to all physicians and nurses in the inpatient units at a German university hospital. The questionnaire was an amalgam of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) scale to assess patient-related burnout of and portions of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSPSC). Indicators from administrative data used to assess workload and patient-related work-strain were: amount of overtime worked, work intensity recording of nurses, cost weight, occupancy rate and DRG-related length of stay. Quality of care was assessed using readmission rates and disease-related length of stay. Univariate associations were tested with Pearson correlations.ResultsResponse rate were 37% (224) for physicians and 39% (351) for nurses. Physicians’ overtime correlated strongly with perceived quantitative demands (.706, 95% CI: 0.634 to 0.766), emotional demands (.765; 95% CI: 0.705 to 0.814), and perceived role conflicts (.655, 95% CI: 0.573 to 0.724). Nurses’ work-intensity measures were associated with decreasing physician job satisfaction and with less favorable perceptions of the appropriateness of staffing (-.527, 95% CI:-0.856 to 0.107). Both professional groups showed medium to strong associations between the morbidity measure (cost weight) and role conflicts; between occupancy rates and role clarity (-.482, 95% CI: -0.782 to -0.02) and predictability of work (-.62, 95% CI: -0.848 to -0.199); and between length of stay and internal team functioning (-.555, 95% CI: -0.818 to -0.101). Higher readmission rates were associated with lower perceived patient safety (-.476, 95% CI: -0.779 to 0.006), inadequate staffing (-.702, 95% CI: -0.884 to -0.334), and worse team functioning (-.520, 95% CI: -0.801 to -0.052). Shorter disease-related length of stay was associated with better teamwork within units (-.555, 95% CI: -0.818 to -0.101) and a lower risk of physician burnout (-.588, 95% CI: -0.846 to -0.108).ConclusionPerceptions of hospital personnel regarding sub-optimal workplace safety and teamwork issues correlated with worse patient outcome measures. Furthermore, objective measures of overtime work as well as objective measures of workload correlated clearly with subjective work-related stress and strain. This suggests that objective workload measures (such as overtime worked) could be used to indirectly monitor job-related psychosocial strain on employees and, thus, improve not only staff wellb...

Despite significant morbidity and mortality for major burns, palliative care consultation (PCC) is underutilized in this population. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of a protocol using recommended “triggers” for PCC at a single academic burn center. This is a retrospective review of patient deaths over a four-year period. Use of life-sustaining treatments, comfort care (de-escalation of one or more life-sustaining treatments) and do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) orders were determined. Use of PCC was compared during periods before and after a protocol establishing recommended triggers for early (<72 hrs of admission) PCC was instituted in 2019. A total of 33 patient deaths were reviewed. Most patients were male (n=28, 85%) and median age was 62 years [IQR 42-72]. Median revised Baux score was 112 [IQR 81-133]. Many patients had life-sustaining interventions such as intubation, dialysis, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, often prior to admission. Amongst patients who survived >24 hrs, 67% (n=14/21) had PCC. Frequency of PCC increased after protocol development, with 100% vs. 36% of these patients having PCC before death (p=0.004). However, even during the later period, less than half of patients had early PCC despite meeting criteria at admission. In conclusion, initiation of life-sustaining measures in severely injured burn patients occurs prior to or early during hospitalization. Thus, value-based early goals of care discussions are valuable to prevent interventions that do not align with patient values and assist with de-escalation of life-sustaining treatment. In this small sample, we found that while there was increasing use of PCC overall after developing a protocol of recommended triggers for consultation, many patients who met criteria at admission did not receive early PCC. Further research is needed to elucidate reasons why providers may be resistant to PCC.

Background Perceived high chronic stress is twice as prevalent among German general practitioners (GPs) and non-physician medical staff compared to the general population. The reasons are multi-factorial and include patient, practice, healthcare system and societal factors, such as multi-morbidity, the diversity of populations and innovations in medical care. Also, practice-related factors, like stressful patient-staff interactions, poor process management of waiting times and lack of leadership, play a role. This publicly funded study evaluates the effectiveness of the newly developed participatory, interdisciplinary, and multimodal IMPROVEjob intervention on improving job satisfaction among general practice personnel. The intervention aims at structural stress prevention with regard to working conditions and behavioural stress prevention for leaders and other practice personnel. Methods In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, a total of 56 general practices will be assigned to either (1) participation in the IMPROVEjob intervention or (2) the waiting-list control group. The IMPROVEjob intervention consists of the following elements: three workshops, a toolbox with supplemental material and an implementation period with regular contact to so-called IMPROVEjob facilitators. The first workshop, addressing leadership issues, is designed for physicians with leadership responsibilities only. The two subsequent workshops target all GP and non-physician personnel; they address issues of communication (with patients and within the team), self-care and team-care and practice organisation. During the 9-month implementation period, practices will be contacted by IMPROVEjob facilitators to enhance motivation. Additionally, the practices will have access to the toolbox materials online. All participants will complete questionnaires at baseline and follow up. The primary outcome is the change in job satisfaction as measured by the respective scale of the validated German version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ, version 2018). Secondary outcomes obtained by questionnaires and - qualitatively - by facilitators comprise psychosocial working conditions including leadership aspects, expectations and experiences of the workshops, team and individual efforts and organisational changes. Discussion It is hypothesised that participation in the IMPROVEjob intervention will improve job satisfaction and thus constitute a structural and behavioural prevention strategy for the promotion of psychological wellbeing of personnel in general practices and prospectively in other small and medium sized enterprises. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00012677. Registered on 16 October 2019. Retrospectively, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial. HTML&TRIAL_ID = DRKS00012677.

Objectives In recent years, several instruments for measuring patient safety culture (PSC) have been developed and implemented. Correct interpretation of survey findings is crucial for understanding PSC locally, for comparisons across settings or time, as well as for planning effective interventions. We aimed to evaluate the influence of gender, profession, and managerial function on perceptions of PSC and on the interplay between various dimensions and perceptions of PSC. Methods We used German and Swiss survey data of frontline physicians and nurses (n = 1786). Data analysis was performed for the two samples separately using multivariate analysis of variance, comparisons of adjusted means, and series of multiple regressions. Results Participants’ profession and managerial function had significant direct effect on perceptions of PSC. Although there was no significant direct effect of gender for most of the PSC dimensions, it had an indirect effect on PSC dimensions through statistically significant direct effects on profession and managerial function. We identified similarities and differences across participant groups concerning the impact of various PSC dimensions on Overall Perception of Patient Safety . Staffing and Organizational Learning had positive influence in most groups without managerial function, whereas Teamwork Within Unit , Feedback & Communication About Error , and Communication Openness had no significant effect. For female participants without managerial functions, Management Support for Patient Safety had a significant positive effect. Conclusions Participant characteristics have significant effects on perceptions of PSC and thus should be accounted for in reporting, interpreting, and comparing results from different samples.