12 research outputs found

    COVID-19’s Impact on Medical Staff Wellbeing: Investigating Trauma and Resilience in a Longitudinal Study—Are Doctors Truly Less Vulnerable Than Nurses?

    No full text
    This study examines the psychological repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on a medical team in an Israeli general hospital. The research explores the professional quality of life, burnout symptoms, secondary traumatic stress, and mindfulness among team members across three distinct phases of the pandemic. Analysis was conducted for different subgroups based on job roles and seniority, allowing for an evaluation of the phase-specific effects on ProQOL (Professional Quality of Life) and mindfulness. Results align with established crisis trajectories: honeymoon/heroic phases, inventory, disillusionment, and recovery. As a result of the prolonged pandemic and the need to change shifts and recruit staff to deal with the affected patients, it is an accumulative study not following the same person but the same ward and the same hospital. The findings suggest a negative correlation between compassion satisfaction and burnout, as well as between mindfulness and burnout/secondary traumatic stress. Unlike most studies, healthcare workers (HCWs) were less affected than doctors in all measures. This study highlights doctors’ vulnerability and underscores hospital management’s key role in promoting effective support for professional quality of life. This is especially important for male doctors facing distinct well-being challenges

    Trends in Health Quality–Related Publications Over the Past Three Decades: Systematic Review

    No full text
    BackgroundQuality assessment in health care is a process of planned activities with the ultimate goal of achieving a continuous improvement of medical care through the evaluation of structure, process, and outcome measures. Physicians and health care specialists involved with quality issues are faced with an enormous and nearly always increasing amount of literature to read and integrate. Nevertheless, the novelty and quality of these articles (in terms of evidence-based medicine) has not been systematically assessed and described. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the number of high-evidence journal articles (according to the pyramid of evidence), such as randomized control trials, systematic reviews, and ultimately, practice guidelines, increases over time, relative to lower-evidence journal articles, such as editorials, reviews, and letters to the editors. MethodsWe used PubMed database to retrieve relevant articles published during the 31-year period between January 1, 1989, and December 31, 2021. The search was conducted in April 2022. We used the keywords “quality care,” “quality management,” “quality indicators,” and “quality improvement” and limited the search fields to title and abstract in order to limit our search results to articles nearly exclusively related to health care quality. ResultsDuring this 31-year evaluation period, there was a significant cubic increase in the total number of publications, reviews, clinical trials (peaking in 2017, with a sharp decline until 2021), controlled trials (peaking in 2016, with a sharp drop until 2021), randomized controlled trials (peaking in 2017, with a sharp drop until 2021), systematic reviews (nearly nonexistent in the 1980s through 1990s to a peak of 222 in 2021), and meta-analyses (from nearly none in the 1980s through 1990s to a peak of approximately 40 per year in 2020). There was a linear increase in practice guidelines from none during 1989-1991 to approximately 25 per year during 2019-2021, including a cubic increase in editorials, peaking in 2021 at 125 per year, and in letters to the editor, peaking at 50-78 per year in the last 4 years (ie, 2018-2021). ConclusionsOver the past 31 years, the field of quality in health care has seen a significant yearly increase of published original studies with a relative stagnation since 2015. We suggest that contributors to this dynamic field of research should focus on producing more evidence-based publications and guidelines

    To charge or not to charge: reducing patient no-show

    No full text
    Abstract Background In order to reduce patient no-show, the Israeli government is promoting legislation that will allow Health Plans to require a co-payment from patients when reserving an appointment. It is hoped that this will create an incentive for patients to cancel in advance rather than simply not show up. The goal of this policy is to improve patient access to medical care and ensure that healthcare resources are utilized effectively. We explore this phenomenon to support evidence-based decision making on this issue, and to determine whether the proposed legislation is aligned with the findings of previous studies. Main body No-show rates vary across countries and healthcare services, with several strategies in place to mitigate the phenomenon. There are three key stakeholders involved: (1) patients, (2) medical staff, and (3) insurers/managed care organizations, each of which is affected differently by no-shows and faces a different set of incentives. The decision whether to impose financial penalties for no-shows should take a number of considerations into account, such as the fine amount, service type, the establishment of an effective fine collection system, the patient’s socioeconomic status, and the potential for exacerbating disparities in healthcare access. The limited research on the impact of fines on no-show rates has produced mixed results. Further investigation is necessary to understand the influence of fine amounts on no-show rates across various healthcare services. Additionally, it is important to evaluate the implications of this proposed legislation on patient behavior, access to healthcare, and potential disparities in access. Conclusion It is anticipated that the proposed legislation will have minimal impact on attendance rates. To achieve meaningful change, efforts should focus on enhancing medical service availability and improving the ease with which appointments can be cancelled or alternatively substantial fines should be imposed. Further research is imperative for determining the most effective way to address the issue of patient no-show and to enhance healthcare system efficiency
    corecore