[Professional quality of life in the clinical governance model of Asturias (Spain)]. / Calidad de vida de los profesionales en el modelo de gestión clínica de Asturias.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate professional quality of life in our clinical governance model by comparing differences according to the time since the model's implementation (1-3 years) and the setting (primary or hospital care). METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed. The 35-item, anonymous, self-administered Professional Quality of Life Questionnaire, with three additional questions, was applied. A minimum sample size for each clinical governance unit/area (CGU/CGA) was calculated. Descriptive, univariate and bivariate analyses were performed using the 35 items separately. The subscales of « management support ¼, « workload ¼ and « intrinsic motivation ¼ were used as dependant variables, and the setting and time since implementation of the CGU/CGA as independent variables. RESULTS: Of the study population of 2572 professionals, 1395 (54%) responded (67% in primary care and 51% in hospital care). A total of 87% had been working for 5 years or more in their positions. Thirty-three percent had worked for less than a year in clinical governance. The item with the highest score was job training (8.39 ± 1.42) and that with the lowest was conflicts with peers (3.23 ± 2.2). Primary healthcare professionals showed better results in management support and quality of life at work and hospital professionals in workload. The clinical governance model obtained the best scores at 3 years and the worst at 1 year. These differences were especially favorable for clinical governance in hospitals: professionals working longer perceived a lower workload and more intrinsic motivation and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: A longer time working in the clinical governance model was associated with better perception of professional quality of life, especially in hospital care.

Calidad de vida de los profesionales en el modelo de gestión clínica de Asturias / Professional quality of life in the clinical governance model of Asturias (Spain)

Objetivo: Analizar la calidad de vida profesional en el modelo de gestión clínica de Asturias y comprobar si hay diferencias en los centros donde el modelo lleva implantado más tiempo o en función del ámbito asistencial (atención primaria o especializada). Métodos: Se aplicó el CVP-35 (35 preguntas), anónimo y autocumplimentado, con tres preguntas adicionales. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo, univariado y bivariado, de las preguntas por separado y según las subescalas "Apoyo directivo" (AD), "Cargas de trabajo" (CT) y "Motivación intrínseca" (MI), siendo las principales variables independientes el ámbito asistencial y el tiempo como unidad o área de gestión clínica. Resultados: De la población de estudio, 2572 profesionales, respondieron 1395 (54%) (el 67% en primaria y 51% en especializada). El 87% llevaba 5 años o más en su puesto. Para el 33% era su primer año en gestión clínica. El ítem con mayor puntuación fue la capacitación para el trabajo (8,39 ± 1,42) y el más bajo los conflictos con los compañeros (3,23 ± 2,2). Primaria obtiene resultados más altos en AD y calidad de vida en el trabajo, y especializada en CT. Respecto a la gestión clínica, las mejores puntuaciones se obtienen en las de 3 años y las peores en las de primer año. Las diferencias son especialmente favorables a la gestión clínica en especializada: las que más tiempo llevan perciben menos CT y más MI y calidad de vida. Conclusiones: Llevar más tiempo en el modelo de gestión clínica se asocia con mejores percepciones en la calidad de vida profesional, sobre todo en atención especializada (AU)

Objective: To evaluate professional quality of life in our clinical governance model by comparing differences according to the time since the model's implementation (1-3 years) and the setting (primary or hospital care). Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed. The 35-item, anonymous, self-administered Professional Quality of Life Questionnaire, with three additional questions, was applied. A minimum sample size for each clinical governance unit/area (CGU/CGA) was calculated. Descriptive, univariate and bivariate analyses were performed using the 35 items separately. The subscales of "management support", "workload" and "intrinsic motivation" were used as dependant variables, and the setting and time since implementation of the CGU/CGA as independent variables. Results: Of the study population of 2572 professionals, 1395 (54%) responded (67% in primary care and 51% in hospital care). A total of 87% had been working for 5 years or more in their positions. Thirty-three percent had worked for less than a year in clinical governance. The item with the highest score was job training (8.39 ± 1.42) and that with the lowest was conflicts with peers (3.23 ± 2.2). Primary healthcare professionals showed better results in management support and quality of life at work and hospital professionals in workload. The clinical governance model obtained the best scores at 3 years and the worst at 1 year. These differences were especially favorable for clinical governance in hospitals: professionals working longer perceived a lower workload and more intrinsic motivation and quality of life. Conclusions: A longer time working in the clinical governance model was associated with better perception of professional quality of life, especially in hospital care (AU)