BACKGROUND. The objectives of this study were to validate the Distress Thermometer (DT) in the Netherlands and to examine its correspondence with a 46‐item Problem List, possible risk factors, and the wish for a referral. METHODS. A cross‐sectional group of 277 cancer patients who were treated at 9 hospitals filled in the DT and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and rated the presence and severity of problems (response rate, 49%). RESULTS. Receiver operating characteristic analyses identified an ideal cutoff score of 5 on the DT with a positive predictive value of 39% and a negative predictive value of 95%. The Problem List appeared to be a reliable measure. Five items on the Problem List correlated strongly with the DT, 13 items had a moderately strong correlation, 26 items were correlated weakly, and 2 items were not correlated significantly. Emotional control, nervousness, pain, and physical fitness appeared to contribute independently to the DT score. The percentage of patients scoring ≥5 (n = 118 patients; 43%) who wanted (14%) or maybe wanted (29%) a referral was significantly higher than the percentage of patients with DT scores <5 (5% and 13%, respectively) who wanted or maybe wanted a referral. Intensively treated patients reported more distress than those who only underwent surgery. No other clear risk factors for distress were identified. CONCLUSIONS. The DT appeared to be a good instrument for routine screening and ruling out elevated distress. Emotional and physical problems contributed mainly to distress. Experiencing clinically elevated distress did not necessarily suggest that patients wanted a referral. Screening for distress and the wish for a referral can facilitate providing support for those patients who most need and want it. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.
Research on burnout among medical residents is scarce. The weak quality of the studies, the wide variety and limited predictive power of the predictor variables included and the inconsistent findings illustrate the need for a more systematic design with regard to future research among medical residents. A future research model should take account of the individual, occupational and training demands experienced by medical residents.
Burnout is a work-related syndrome that may negatively affect more than just the resident physician. On the other hand, engagement has been shown to protect employees; it may also positively affect the patient care that the residents provide. Little is known about the relationship between residents' self-reported errors and burnout and engagement. In our national study that included all residents and physicians in The Netherlands, 2115 questionnaires were returned (response rate 41.1%). The residents reported on burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory-Health and Social Services), engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) and self-assessed patient care practices (six items, two factors: errors in action/judgment, errors due to lack of time). Ninety-four percent of the residents reported making one or more mistake without negative consequences for the patient during their training. Seventy-one percent reported performing procedures for which they did not feel properly trained. More than half (56%) of the residents stated they had made a mistake with a negative consequence. Seventy-six percent felt they had fallen short in the quality of care they provided on at least one occasion. Men reported more errors in action/judgment than women. Significant effects of specialty and clinical setting were found on both types of errors. Residents with burnout reported significantly more errors (p < 0.001). Highly engaged residents reported fewer errors (p
As more than a fifth of the medical residents who responded could be diagnosed as suffering from burnout, we conclude that this problem needs addressing in the Dutch health care system, especially given that a relationship was proven between burnout and suboptimal patient care. We must look for solutions and interventions which will improve the work situation of medical residents. Striving for healthy workers in health care has to become daily practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.