Dissatisfaction and Burnout among Flemish emergency physicians: a qualitative study

Bogaert, Ine Van; Depuydt, Catheline; Hachimi-Idrissi, Saı̈d

doi:10.1080/17843286.2019.1629077

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The correlation between distress and turnover intentions is well known, especially in case of burnout [33][34][35] and a poor safety culture. 36,37 In addition, the free-text entries also showed this relationship.…”

Section: Key Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Item 26 also showed a cross-loading on “distress” and “change.” This intercorrelation was explained because the word “stress” was part of the question, and therefore, distress might be the driver to the desire for change. The correlation between distress and turnover intentions is well known, especially in case of burnout 33–35 and a poor safety culture 36,37 . In addition, the free-text entries also showed this relationship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of the German Version of the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool—Revised

Strametz

Siebold²,

Heistermann³

et al. 2021

J Patient Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The second victim phenomenon that occurs after critical events poses a serious factor for patient and workplace safety. These experiences can be evaluated using the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST), originally in English, or the translated and validated Korean or Chinese versions. In 2020, a revised version was published (SVESTR) with the addition of resilience items. The aim of this study is the validation of the German version, the G-SVESTR, in a multiprofessional setting. Methods:The G-SVESTR questionnaire was designed according to World Health Organization recommendations. This entails translation, test for face validity, back translation, pretest, expert panel evaluation, and a test in a large population for validity and reliability. We provided an anonymous online questionnaire to physicians, nurses, paramedics, medical assistants, and physician assistants to test our developed tool. Statistics were accomplished using XL-Stats.Results: Altogether, 72% (306 of 428) of the participants completed the survey. The mean time for completion was 9.4 minutes. Physician assistants and medical assistants were significantly younger than other respondents. The analysis revealed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach α = 0.844). A principal component analysis showed 11 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Factor loading on distinct dimensions was satisfactory with one exception, the absenteeism item (item 31), which showed cross-loadings and poor factor loading on the absenteeism dimension. The results of the G-SVESTR revealed only some differences between the professional subgroups. Conclusion:The G-SVESTR is a valid and reliable testing instrument for the evaluation of second victim experiences in different medical professions.

show abstract