Job satisfaction of staff and the team environment in Australian general practice

The document attached has been archived with permission from the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Objective: To study the work satisfaction of general practice staff, the differences between types of staff, and the individual and organisational factors associated with work satisfaction. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional multipractice study based on a self-completed job satisfaction survey of 626 practice staff in 96 general practices in Australia between 16 December 2003 and 8 October 2004. Main outcome measures: Job satisfaction scores for all staff and for general practitioners alone; relationship between job satisfaction and the team climate, practice size, particular jobs within practices, demographic characteristics of participants, and geographical location of practices. Results: The response rate was 65%. Job satisfaction was high, with a mean score of 5.66 (95% CI, 5.60–5.72). Multilevel analysis showed that all general practice staff were highly satisfied if they worked in a practice with a good team climate. Practice managers reported the highest satisfaction with their work. Practice size and individual characteristics such as the sex of the participant were unrelated to job satisfaction. GPs tended to have lower satisfaction than other staff in relation to income, recognition for good work and hours of work. Rural GPs were more satisfied. Conclusions: Most general practice staff are satisfied with their work. Facilitating teamwork may be a key strategy for both recruitment and retention of the general practice workforce, especially staff who are not GPs.Mark F Harris, Judy G Proudfoot, Upali W Jayasinghe, Christine H Holton, Gawaine P Powell Davies, Cheryl L Amoroso, Tanya K Bubner and Justin J Beilb

Patient education and consumer medicine information: a study of provision by Queensland rural and remote area registered nurses

Patient education and consumer medicine information: a study of provision by Queensland rural and remote area Registered Nurses Aims and objectives. The aim of the larger study was to ascertain the medication practices of registered and enrolled nurses in rural and remote areas of Queensland after the introduction of the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation. This paper reports on the findings of the role of registered nurses and their confidence in the ability to provide information on medications in a way that the client understands; the frequency of the provision of information to clients prior to discharge; and the frequency of Indigenous Health Workers or interpreters for people without English as a first language. Background Queensland employs approximately 17% of the Australian registered nurse workforce. In 1996 Queensland changed the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation to allow specific registered nurses, who had undertaken approved postgraduate education and training programmes, to become endorsed for an expanded medication practice role. In particular, it allowed endorsed nurses to administer and supply (but not prescribe) drugs listed in a drug formulary to certain clients using protocols. It was not clear, however, whether the changes to the regulation reflected the scope of practice, thereby providing adequate legal protection for the nurse. Design During 2001-02, an exploration of the medication practices of rural and remote area nurses was conducted by the use of a cross-sectional postal survey. Phase 1 of the study used a facility audit to ascertain facility medication practices and phase 2 of the study used a postal survey to ascertain nurses' medication practices. Method All nurses employed in rural and remote health facilities in Queensland were eligible to participate in the study. The nurse registering authority's (the Queensland Nursing Council) register was used to generate a non-proportional stratified random sample. Of the 1999 questionnaires sent, there were 668 respondents. Of these, 520 were registered nurses. Results The data indicated that there was a difference between endorsed and unendorsed registered nurses' medication practice. In particular, it was apparent that endorsed registered nurses were more likely to believe they could explain the side-effects of medication to clients in a way the patient understood; provided medication education to clients on discharge; and used Indigenous Health Workers or interpreters to explain medications to those clients for whom English was not a first language. However, it was apparent that<50% of all Registered Nurses were providing client medication education or using Indigenous Health Workers or interpreters. Conclusion It is apparent that the changes to the Regulation have ensured that Registered Nurses who have undergone postgraduate education to enhance their medication practice are more likely to provide client education and consumer medication information. However, the results suggest that the majority of registered nurses in Queensland, whilst believing they have sufficient knowledge of pharmacology to provide client education, often do not provide appropriate medication advice to clients, particularly on discharge from the acute setting. Relevance to clinical practice. It is well recognized that the provision of medication education to clients has several benefits to both the client and the health care system. The lack of client medication education indicated in this study compromises patients' safety as well as their compliance with their medication regime