RESUMO
Burnout amongst healthcare employees is considered an epidemic; prior research indicates a host of associated negative consequences, though more research is needed to understand the predictors of burnout across healthcare employees. All employees in a cancer-focused academic healthcare institution were invited to participate in a bi-annual online confidential employee survey. A 72% response rate yielded 9979 complete responses. Participants completed demographic items, a validated single-item measure of burnout, and items measuring eight employee job attitudes toward their jobs and organization (agility, development, alignment, leadership, trust, resources, safety, and teamwork). Department-level characteristics, turnover, and vacancy were calculated for group level analyses. A univariate F test revealed differences in burnout level by department type (F (3, 9827) = 54.35, p < 0.05) and post hoc Scheffe's tests showed employees in clinical departments reported more burnout than other departments. Hierarchical multiple regression revealed that employee demographic and job-related variables (including department type) explained 8% of the variance of burnout (F (19, 7880) = 37.95, p < 0.001), and employee job attitudes explained an additional 27% of the variance of burnout (F (8, 7872) = 393.18, p < 0.001). Relative weights analysis at the group level showed that, of the constructs measured, alignment is the strongest predictor of burnout, followed by trust and leadership. The relationships are inverse in nature, such that more alignment is related to less burnout. Turnover and vacancy rates did not predict group level burnout. The results reported here provide evidence supporting a shift in the focus of research and practice from detection to prevention of employee burnout and from individual-focused interventions to organization-wide interventions to prevent burnout.
RESUMO
The clinical operations and programs division at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center undertook an initiative, as part of a new performance management system, to determine the effectiveness in aligning individual performance goals to institutional goals and linking performance to rewards (i.e., distinguishing high performers from low performers). The initiative was completed in two phases--the first involved a pilot group of administrators and managers, and the second encompassed the entire clinical area of the institution. Progress was monitored using a survey specific to the performance management initiative, an institutional employee opinion survey, and employee performance review and merit data. We demonstrated support for both goals in the findings from our performance management survey and for our second goal with the institutional employee opinion survey results. Our correlation analysis of the linkage between performance and merit data provided further evidence that the initiative's implementation affected our goal of better distinguishing high performers from low performers. Although our results indicate that we made significant progress toward meeting our goals, we outlined limitations and implications of our results for other organizations to consider as they embark on their own performance management initiatives. Thinking of performance management as a complete system that encompasses goal alignment, education, communication, and continuous feedback can lead to the recognition of top performers. This recognition is important as organizations try to retain their top talent and improve the performance of all employees in an effort to positively influence the patient experience.