Doctor, how can we help you? Qualitative interview study to identify key interventions to target burnout in hospital doctors

Objective To identify priority interventions for the prevention and reduction of work stress and burnout in hospital doctors through analysis of (1) doctors’ experiences of work stress and burnout and (2) their preferences with respect to interventions. Design Qualitative design using semistructured interviews analysed with deductive thematic analysis. Setting Hospitals in Ireland. Participants 32 hospital doctors (16 practising consultants and 16 doctors in training) from a range of specialties, career stages, hospital types and locations. Results Practical, system-focused interventions were found to be most needed. Challenges with basic entitlements, that is, accessing statutory leave, knowing in advance when leave can be taken and being adequately covered when on leave were identified as requiring urgent attention. Other priority interventions identified were the integration of psychological support in the everyday working environment, time and training for clinical line managers to perform key management activities such as debriefing and education interventions which highlight work stress risks and care pathways, teach self-care and train doctors in how to support one another. Conclusions Hospital doctors are feeling the effects of greater demand and fewer resources. What they most urgently need is adequate staffing levels, access to statutory leave and adequate cover when on leave. Doctors do not receive the support they need from their clinical line managers, who lack the skills and time to excel as people managers. Organisations should focus on developing clinical management skills across the system. The culture of medicine needs to change from stigmatisation and competitiveness to compassion and collaboration. Organisations, medical schools and professional bodies can steer this change through education

“Do as we say, not as we do?” the lifestyle behaviours of hospital doctors working in Ireland: a national cross-sectional study

Abstract Background This study was conducted to assess the lifestyle behaviours of a national sample of hospital doctors working in Ireland. We also sought to compare the prevalence of these behaviours in doctors to the general Irish population. Methods This was a national cross-sectional study of a randomised sample of hospital doctors working in Irish publicly funded hospitals and residential institutions. The final cohort consisted of 1749 doctors (response rate of 55%). All hospital specialties were represented except radiology. The following data were collected: sociodemographic data (age, sex), work grade (consultant, trainee) average hours worked over a two-week period, specialty and lifestyle behaviours (smoking, alcohol, physical activity). Lifestyle data for the general population was provided by the Healthy Ireland 2015 study. Results Half of participants were men (50.5%). Just over half of the sample were consultants (54.3%), with 45.7% being trainees. 9.3% of doctors surveyed were smokers, 88.4% consumed alcohol and 24.5% were physically inactive. Trainees were more likely to smoke and be physically inactive when compared to consultants. Smoking rates amongst doctors were lower than the general population (9.3% -v- 23%). Doctors were more likely to consume alcohol than the general population (88.4% -v- 71.7%) but less likely to engage in binge drinking on a typical drinking occasion (12.8% -v- 39.5%). Doctors were more compliant than the general population with minimum exercise targets (75.5% -v- 70.5%), but less likely to engage in health enhancing physical activity (19.1% -v- 33%). Conclusions While the prevalence of health behaviours amongst hospital doctors in Ireland compares favourably to the general population, their alcohol consumption and engagement in health enhancing physical activity suggest room for improvement. Continued health promotion and education on the importance of personal health behaviours is essential

Doctor, how can we help you? Qualitative interview study to identify key interventions to target burnout in hospital doctors

Objective To identify priority interventions for the prevention and reduction of work stress and burnout in hospital doctors through analysis of (1) doctors’ experiences of work stress and burnout and (2) their preferences with respect to interventions. Design Qualitative design using semistructured interviews analysed with deductive thematic analysis. Setting Hospitals in Ireland. Participants 32 hospital doctors (16 practising consultants and 16 doctors in training) from a range of specialties, career stages, hospital types and locations. Results Practical, system-focused interventions were found to be most needed. Challenges with basic entitlements, that is, accessing statutory leave, knowing in advance when leave can be taken and being adequately covered when on leave were identified as requiring urgent attention. Other priority interventions identified were the integration of psychological support in the everyday working environment, time and training for clinical line managers to perform key management activities such as debriefing and education interventions which highlight work stress risks and care pathways, teach self-care and train doctors in how to support one another. Conclusions Hospital doctors are feeling the effects of greater demand and fewer resources. What they most urgently need is adequate staffing levels, access to statutory leave and adequate cover when on leave. Doctors do not receive the support they need from their clinical line managers, who lack the skills and time to excel as people managers. Organisations should focus on developing clinical management skills across the system. The culture of medicine needs to change from stigmatisation and competitiveness to compassion and collaboration. Organisations, medical schools and professional bodies can steer this change through education

Worsening of mental health outcomes in nursing home staff during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland.

BackgroundMental health issues in nursing home staff during the COVID-19 pandemic have been significant; however, it is not known if these issues persist following widespread vaccination and easing of restrictions.ObjectiveTo quantify the mental health of nursing home staff at different timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland.Design/methodsTwo identical, online, cross-sectional, nationwide, anonymous surveys of Republic of Ireland nursing home staff at two timepoints (survey 1 (S1, n = 390): November 2020 to January 2021; survey 2 (S2, N = 229: November 2021 to February 2022) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Convenience sampling was used with staff self-selecting for participation. Methods included the World Health Organisation's Well-Being Index (WHO-5), the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R), the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES), two Likert-scale items regarding suicidal ideation and planning, the Work Ability Score (WAS), the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief-COPE) Scale, and a 15-item questionnaire assessing perceptions of the outbreak with one additional Likert-scale item on altruism. Descriptive analysis examined differences between staff based on their classification in one of three groups: nurses, healthcare assistants (HCA) and nonclinical staff. Pseudonymous identifiers were used to link responses across surveys.ResultsAn insufficient number of participants completed both surveys for linked analyses to be performed; therefore, we performed an ecological comparison between these two independent surveys. More staff reported moderate-severe post-traumatic stress symptoms (S1 45%; S2 65%), depression (S1: 39%; S2 57%), suicidal ideation (S1: 14%; S2 18%) and suicidal planning (S1: 9%; S2 15%) later in the pandemic. There was a higher degree of moral injury at S2 (S1: 20.8 standard deviation (SD) 9.1; S2: 25.7 SD (11.3)) and use of avoidant (maladaptive) coping styles at S2 (S1: 20.8 (6.3); S2 23.0 (6.3)) with no notable differences found in the use of approach (adaptive) coping styles. Staff reported more concerns at S2 regarding contracting COVID-19, social stigma, job stress, doubts about personal protective equipment and systems and processes.ConclusionIn comparison to our previous survey, mental health outcomes appear to have worsened, coping did not improve, and staff concerns, and worries appear to have increased as the pandemic progressed. Follow-up studies could help to clarify is there are any lingering problems and to assess if these issues are related to the pandemic and working conditions in nursing homes

Mental health outcomes compared between timepoints one and two.

Mental health outcomes compared between timepoints one and two.</p

Nursing home staff mental health outcomes, by role (Survey 2).

Nursing home staff mental health outcomes, by role (Survey 2).</p

Covid-19 cases, deaths and percentage of the population fully vaccinated in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the timing of surveys 1 and 2.

Covid-19 cases, deaths and percentage of the population fully vaccinated in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the timing of surveys 1 and 2.</p

S1 File -

BackgroundMental health issues in nursing home staff during the COVID-19 pandemic have been significant; however, it is not known if these issues persist following widespread vaccination and easing of restrictions.ObjectiveTo quantify the mental health of nursing home staff at different timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland.Design/MethodsTwo identical, online, cross-sectional, nationwide, anonymous surveys of Republic of Ireland nursing home staff at two timepoints (survey 1 (S1, n = 390): November 2020 to January 2021; survey 2 (S2, N = 229: November 2021 to February 2022) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Convenience sampling was used with staff self-selecting for participation. Methods included the World Health Organisation’s Well-Being Index (WHO-5), the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R), the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES), two Likert-scale items regarding suicidal ideation and planning, the Work Ability Score (WAS), the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief-COPE) Scale, and a 15-item questionnaire assessing perceptions of the outbreak with one additional Likert-scale item on altruism. Descriptive analysis examined differences between staff based on their classification in one of three groups: nurses, healthcare assistants (HCA) and nonclinical staff. Pseudonymous identifiers were used to link responses across surveys.ResultsAn insufficient number of participants completed both surveys for linked analyses to be performed; therefore, we performed an ecological comparison between these two independent surveys. More staff reported moderate-severe post-traumatic stress symptoms (S1 45%; S2 65%), depression (S1: 39%; S2 57%), suicidal ideation (S1: 14%; S2 18%) and suicidal planning (S1: 9%; S2 15%) later in the pandemic. There was a higher degree of moral injury at S2 (S1: 20.8 standard deviation (SD) 9.1; S2: 25.7 SD (11.3)) and use of avoidant (maladaptive) coping styles at S2 (S1: 20.8 (6.3); S2 23.0 (6.3)) with no notable differences found in the use of approach (adaptive) coping styles. Staff reported more concerns at S2 regarding contracting COVID-19, social stigma, job stress, doubts about personal protective equipment and systems and processes.ConclusionIn comparison to our previous survey, mental health outcomes appear to have worsened, coping did not improve, and staff concerns, and worries appear to have increased as the pandemic progressed. Follow-up studies could help to clarify is there are any lingering problems and to assess if these issues are related to the pandemic and working conditions in nursing homes.</div

Demographic characteristics of nursing home staff, by role (Survey 2).

Demographic characteristics of nursing home staff, by role (Survey 2).</p