Clinical staff work sampling in a neurorehabilitation hospital and its relationship to severity of disease.
rehabilitation
work organisation
workforce issues
Journal
Journal of nursing management
ISSN: 1365-2834
Titre abrégé: J Nurs Manag
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
21
09
2017
revised:
23
04
2018
accepted:
16
05
2018
pubmed:
22
8
2018
medline:
23
4
2019
entrez:
22
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Study aimed to analyse how rehabilitation staff spends working time on specific activities in a neurorehabilitation hospital and to determine the number of direct activities received by patients with different levels of disease severity. Few studies have investigated how clinical staff spends their time on activities in rehabilitation hospitals without considering at the same time all working categories and without reporting the number of direct activities received by patients with respect to their disease severity. Self-reported observational study. Work Sampling Technique was used to record direct, indirect, unit-related and personal activities every 5 min for 2 days. Total of 6,974 activities were recorded over 581 working hours. Physiotherapists and nurses spent 75.2% and 54.8% of their time in direct activities and medical doctors only 25.4%. Total time of direct activities was significantly different among worker categories (p = 0.001) and depended on patients' disease severity (p = 0.020) in a different manner among worker categories (interaction: p = 0.010). This time ranged from almost 4 hr up to 6½ hr for the most severely affected patients. Type of work differed among professionals. Workload greatly depended on degree of patients' disability. Nurses and therapists spent most of their time in direct activities with patients. Economic burden of neurorehabilitation may vary greatly depending on disease severity.
Sections du résumé
AIM
OBJECTIVE
Study aimed to analyse how rehabilitation staff spends working time on specific activities in a neurorehabilitation hospital and to determine the number of direct activities received by patients with different levels of disease severity.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Few studies have investigated how clinical staff spends their time on activities in rehabilitation hospitals without considering at the same time all working categories and without reporting the number of direct activities received by patients with respect to their disease severity.
DESIGN
METHODS
Self-reported observational study.
METHOD
METHODS
Work Sampling Technique was used to record direct, indirect, unit-related and personal activities every 5 min for 2 days.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Total of 6,974 activities were recorded over 581 working hours. Physiotherapists and nurses spent 75.2% and 54.8% of their time in direct activities and medical doctors only 25.4%. Total time of direct activities was significantly different among worker categories (p = 0.001) and depended on patients' disease severity (p = 0.020) in a different manner among worker categories (interaction: p = 0.010). This time ranged from almost 4 hr up to 6½ hr for the most severely affected patients.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Type of work differed among professionals. Workload greatly depended on degree of patients' disability.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT
CONCLUSIONS
Nurses and therapists spent most of their time in direct activities with patients. Economic burden of neurorehabilitation may vary greatly depending on disease severity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30129230
doi: 10.1111/jonm.12663
pmc: PMC8351634
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Pagination
179-189Investigateurs
Elio Troisi
(E)
Paolo Casillo
(P)
Sheila Catani
(S)
Luca Pace
(L)
Alessandra Pompa
(A)
Francesco Rizzi
(F)
Roberta Mucci
(R)
Immacolata Sicardi
(I)
Cesare Perfili
(C)
Mascia Francazi
(M)
Rachele Hernandez
(R)
Diana Baldinelli
(D)
Patrizia Di Nardo
(P)
Teresa Misenga
(T)
Chiara Biccheri
(C)
Mario Garoppo
(M)
Linda Crincoli
(L)
Renata Marinotti
(R)
Martina Vomiero
(M)
Alessio Saporiti
(A)
Pierluigi Quagliozzi
(P)
Debora D'Angelo
(D)
Martina Di Santo
(M)
Maria Elena Durante
(ME)
Esther Petrangeli
(E)
Kautar Ei Aouane
(KE)
Stefania Salvemini
(S)
Mirko Leva
(M)
Simone Matteucci
(S)
Alessandro Mori
(A)
Claudio Aragni
(C)
Antonio Navarria
(A)
Stefano Pignatelli
(S)
Arianna Maggio
(A)
Ciro Masella
(C)
Antonio Mercuro
(A)
Mauro Antinori
(M)
Shirin Dabbag
(S)
Paola Romanello
(P)
Daniela Tagliaferri
(D)
Stefania Volpi
(S)
Stefano Gasparotto
(S)
Catia Rocchi
(C)
Annamaria Frezza
(A)
Monica Uleri
(M)
Laura Casagrande
(L)
Francesco Regali
(F)
Cristina Calderone
(C)
Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Nursing Management Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
J Nurs Adm. 2004 May;34(5):246-56
pubmed: 15167421
Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
pubmed: 14258950
J Adv Nurs. 2010 Oct;66(10):2160-9
pubmed: 20636472
J Adv Nurs. 2011 Sep;67(9):1908-17
pubmed: 21466577
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(25):2132-8
pubmed: 22524794
Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Nov;76:100-105
pubmed: 28950187
J Nurs Adm. 1997 Sep;27(9):34-41
pubmed: 9300013
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 22;6(3):e010119
pubmed: 27006342
J Adv Nurs. 2014 Nov;70(11):2434-49
pubmed: 24961158
PM R. 2013 Feb;5(2):122-8
pubmed: 23122894
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Jan;12(1):18-24
pubmed: 17244393
Perm J. 2008 Summer;12(3):25-34
pubmed: 21331207
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Jun;49:292-9
pubmed: 24607863
Scand J Caring Sci. 1988;2(4):155-62
pubmed: 3241906
J Nurs Manag. 2019 Jan;27(1):179-189
pubmed: 30129230
Int J Nurs Stud. 2008 Sep;45(9):1274-84
pubmed: 18243206
Aust Crit Care. 2012 Feb;25(1):13-22
pubmed: 21937236
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 18;166(8):579-586
pubmed: 28135724
J Adv Nurs. 2009 Oct;65(10):2097-107
pubmed: 19674172
J Allied Health. 2009 Spring;38(1):E1-10
pubmed: 19753406
Nurs Res. 1954 Jun;3(1):11-6
pubmed: 13166127