Perceived human factors from the perspective of paramedics - a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: The work environment in prehospital emergency medical care setting is dynamic and complex and includes many stressors. However, little is known about the perceived human factors from the perspective of paramedics. In this study, we investigated, from the perspective of paramedics, what are the human factors, and how are they linked to prehospital emergency medical care? METHODS: Data were collected through semi-structured interviews (n = 15) with Finnish paramedics. The material was analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Three main categories of human factors were identified. The first main category consisted of factors related to work which were divided into two generic categories: "Challenging organizational work environment" and "Changing external work environment." The second main category comprised factors related to paramedics themselves and were divided into three generic categories: "Issues linked to personality," "Personal experiences", and "Factors resulting from personal features." The third main category described that paramedics have difficulties in understanding and describing human factors. CONCLUSION: This study revealed numerous factors that can affect paramedics' work in the EMS setting. Increased knowledge about human factors in the EMS setting provides organizations with the opportunity to develop procedures that can support paramedics' cognitive and physical work. Human factors in different situations can be addressed to improve occupational and patient safety.

Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anonymous, identity-release and known oocyte donors.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction of altruistic oocyte donors? SUMMARY ANSWER: Donating oocytes in the majority (>90%) of donation cycles is not associated with harmful long-term general or reproductive health effects. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Knowledge of long-term health effects of oocyte donation on donors is sparse and follow-up studies have usually been carried out on commercial donors. Thus far, no major long-term harmful effects have been demonstrated. Most studies have reported a high level of donor satisfaction, but also less favorable experiences have been published. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A retrospective cross-sectional survey of all women who had donated oocytes between 1990 and 2012 at three fertility clinics was carried out in spring 2013. A self-administered questionnaire was sent out to a total of 569 former oocyte donors. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: In all, 428 past donors answered the questionnaire assessing donor's demographic characteristics, short- and long-term medical and psychological experiences and satisfaction related to donations. Of the donors, 87% (371/428) were unknown and 13% (57/428) were known to the recipient. The mean follow-up time after the donation was 11.2 years (range from 0.5 to 23 years) and the mean age of the respondents was 42 years at the time of the study. To learn whether the demographic profile of donors was affected by the Finnish Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) Act of 2007, we divided the 428 respondents into two groups: (i) women whose first donation took place between 1990 and 2007 (79% of the respondents) and (ii) women whose first donation took place between 2008 and 2012 (21% of the respondents). Before 2008, donors were non-identifiable (anonymous) but after 2008 persons born as a result of gamete donation could, from the age of 18, receive on request information identifying the donor. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The response rate was 75% (428/569). The mean age of the donors did not differ between the two time periods, but there was a higher proportion of donors in the youngest age group (20-24 years) and more childless donors (P < 0.05) after 2008 than between 1990 and 2007. Immediate complications occurred in 7.2% (42/582) of the donation cycles and the most common complication was ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in 5.0% (29/582) of the treatments. There were no reports of ovarian or uterine cancer and only one case of breast cancer. After the donation, 11.5% of the donors experienced unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant. Almost all donors (99%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their decision to donate and 95% would warmly recommend it to other women. There were no differences between the known and unknown donors in this respect, or between the two time periods (before or after the ART Act in 2008). Four donors (1%) had regretted donation, and 7% would have wanted to have more support before and 14% after the donation. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: Although the response rate was high, 25% of all former donors in the three participating clinics could not be included due to lack of response. The results are based on self-reported assessment of the experiences of former donors, and it is not possible to estimate the influence of recall bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the largest study of health consequences and satisfaction levels on oocyte donors. Data from this study can be used to inform donor candidates about the medical aspects involved in the treatment and it provides information on how to support these women during and after the donation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by grants from the Medical Society Life and Health, and from the Otto A. Malm Foundation. There are no competing interests to report.