Identifying quality indicators to measure workplace violence in healthcare settings: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Workplace violence (WPV) in healthcare is a growing challenge posing significant risks to patient care and employee well-being. Existing metrics to measure WPV in healthcare settings often fail to provide decision-makers with an adequate reflection of WPV due to the complexity of the issue. This increases the difficulty for decision-makers to evaluate WPV in healthcare settings and implement interventions that can produce sustained improvements. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and compile a list of quality indicators that have previously been utilized to measure WPV in healthcare settings. The identified quality indicators serve as tools, providing leadership with the necessary information on the state of WPV within their organization or the impact of WPV prevention interventions. This information provides leadership with a foundation for planning and decision making related to addressing WPV. METHODS: Ovid databases were used to identify articles relevant to violence in healthcare settings, from which 43 publications were included for data extraction. Data extraction produced a total of 229 quality indicators that were sorted into three indicator categories using the Donabedian model: structure, process, and outcome. RESULTS: A majority of the articles (93%) contained at least 1 quality indicator that possessed the potential to be operationalized at an organizational level. In addition, several articles (40%) contained valuable questionnaires or survey instruments for measuring WPV. In total, the rapid review process identified 84 structural quality indicators, 121 process quality indicators, 24 outcome quality indicators, 57 survey-type questions and 17 survey instruments. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a foundation for healthcare organizations to address WPV through systematic approaches informed by quality indicators. The utilization of indicators showed promise for characterizing WPV and measuring the efficacy of interventions. Caution must be exercised to ensure indicators are not discriminatory and are suited to specific organizational needs. While the findings of this review are promising, further investigation is needed to rigorously evaluate existing literature to expand the list of quality indicators for WPV.

Developing a customised set of evidence-based quality indicators for measuring workplace violence towards healthcare workers: a modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Workplace violence (WPV) is a complex global challenge in healthcare that can only be addressed through a quality improvement initiative composed of a complex intervention. However, multiple WPV-specific quality indicators are required to effectively monitor WPV and demonstrate an intervention's impact. This study aims to determine a set of quality indicators capable of effectively monitoring WPV in healthcare. METHODS: This study used a modified Delphi process to systematically arrive at an expert consensus on relevant WPV quality indicators at a large, multisite academic health science centre in Toronto, Canada. The expert panel consisted of 30 stakeholders from the University Health Network (UHN) and its affiliates. Relevant literature-based quality indicators which had been identified through a rapid review were categorised according to the Donabedian model and presented to experts for two consecutive Delphi rounds. RESULTS: 87 distinct quality indicators identified through the rapid review process were assessed by our expert panel. The surveys received an average response rate of 83.1% in the first round and 96.7% in the second round. From the initial set of 87 quality indicators, our expert panel arrived at a consensus on 17 indicators including 7 structure, 6 process and 4 outcome indicators. A WPV dashboard was created to provide real-time data on each of these indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Using a modified Delphi methodology, a set of quality indicators validated by expert opinion was identified measuring WPV specific to UHN. The indicators identified in this study were found to be operationalisable at UHN and will provide longitudinal quality monitoring. They will inform data visualisation and dissemination tools which will impact organisational decision-making in real time.

Global prevalence of burnout among postgraduate medical trainees: a systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among postgraduate medical trainees (PMTs) is increasingly being recognized as a crisis in the medical profession. We aimed to establish the prevalence of burnout among PMTs, identify risk and protective factors, and assess whether burnout varied by country of training, year of study and specialty of practice. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science and Education Resources Information Center from their inception to Aug. 21, 2018, for studies of burnout among PMTs. The primary objective was to identify the global prevalence of burnout among PMTs. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the association between burnout and country of training, year of study, specialty of training and other sociodemographic factors commonly thought to be related to burnout. We employed random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression techniques to estimate a pooled prevalence and conduct secondary analyses. RESULTS: In total, 8505 published studies were screened, 196 met eligibility and 114 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of burnout was 47.3% (95% confidence interval 43.1% to 51.5%), based on studies published over 20 years involving 31 210 PMTs from 47 countries. The prevalence of burnout remained unchanged over the past 2 decades. Burnout varied by region, with PMTs of European countries experiencing the lowest level. Burnout rates among medical and surgical PMTs were similar. INTERPRETATION: Current wellness efforts and policies have not changed the prevalence of burnout worldwide. Future research should focus on understanding systemic factors and leveraging these findings to design interventions to combat burnout. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42018108774.