Job satisfaction and symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and burnout: A survey of Australian and New Zealand intensive care research coordinators.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care unit clinical research is often implemented by specialised research coordinators (RCs). Clinical research activity within Australian and New Zealand intensive care units has escalated, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Growth of the intensive care RC workforce to match research demand is poorly understood. AIM: The aim of this study was to repeat an Intensive Care Research Coordinator Interest Group workforce survey conducted in 2004 and 2009 to describe the current workforce and role satisfaction and also to determine reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and burnout in Australian and New Zealand intensive care RCs. METHODS: In April 2021, an online anonymised survey was distributed to intensive care RCs to complete demographic and workforce questions, the McCloskey/Mueller Satisfaction Scale, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel. RESULTS: Of 128 Intensive Care Research Coordinator Interest Group eligible members, 98 (77%) completed the survey. Respondents were mainly women (91%), the median age was 47 years, 37% have a postgraduate qualification, and a third have over 10 years of RCC experience (31%). Half do not have permanent employment (52%). The mean Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 scores were within the normal range, and respondents reported symptoms of depression (21 [21%]), anxiety (23 [23%]), and stress (26 [27%]). Nearly half of the respondents (44%) exhibited an early symptom of burnout by reporting problematic experiences of work. The overall role satisfaction score was 3.5/5 (neutral; neither satisfied nor dissatisfied). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care RCs are an experienced group of professionals with limited satisfaction in the role. One-fifth of the ICU RCs experienced depression, anxiety, or stress symptoms, with close to half reporting signs of burnout. These results highlight the need to address areas of concern to ensure retention of this specialised intensive care workforce.

An audit of propofol administration in the intensive care unit: Infusion pump-recorded versus electronically documented amounts.

BACKGROUND: Although propofol is widely used for sedation in intensive care units around Australia, evaluation of bedside nursing practices of the administration of propofol have been limited. We investigated whether there was a discrepancy between the amount of propofol delivered by the infusion pump and that recorded electronically and consequently patient exposure to avoidable harms. AIMS: The aim of this research was to compare the total amount of propofol administered to intensive care patients via a programmable infusion pump with that documented in the electronic medical record (EMR). Secondary objectives were to ascertain the percentage of 1) patients exposed to a propofol dose greater than recommended and 2) daily energy requirements administered as propofol infusion. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of total propofol delivered to 50 patients in a 14-bed metropolitan, Australian intensive care unit. Infusion pump data and entries from the EMR were collated. RESULTS: Propofol sedation was administered for a median 18 (interquartile range: 14-47) hours with median total propofol 3025 mg (interquartile range: 1840-7755 mg) by pump and 3250 mg (interquartile range: 1915-6960 mg) by EMR, i.e. 1.9 (interquartile range: 1.3-2.3) mg/kg/hour by pump (correlation coefficient = 0.99). The total bolus propofol documented in the EMR was a median 330 mg (interquartile range: -838 to -124) less than the pump amount. Nineteen (38%) patients had no EMR-documented propofol boluses yet had received at least one bolus via the pump. In two of 50 (4%) patients, the pump propofol infusion dose was above the recommended maximum safe dose of 4 mg/kg/h. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients, the bolus administration of propofol was frequently not documented, potentially placing some patients at risk of drug-related toxicity. Further research to develop and implement strategies to improve the documentation of propofol administration is indicated.