Work satisfaction among neuroradiology staff after receiving follow up reports of thrombectomy stroke patients.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
31
01
2021
accepted:
05
05
2021
entrez:
19
5
2021
pubmed:
20
5
2021
medline:
27
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
During a period of 6 months, we provided our entire neuroradiological staff including physicians, radiographers, and researchers with systematic feedback via email on the further clinical course of stroke patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy. We analyzed the effects of this feedback on work satisfaction, work meaningfulness and valuation of the therapy among our staff. Our staff completed two self-reported questionnaires before and after the period of six months with systematic feedback. Employees with higher work meaningfulness and higher work satisfaction valuated endovascular stroke therapy as more useful (p<0.001). A good clinical outcome was regarded more motivating than a good interventional outcome (p<0.001). Receiving systematic feedback did not increase work satisfaction (p = 0.318) or work meaningfulness (p = 0.178). Radiographers valuated the usefulness of interventional therapy the worst of all employees (p≤ 0.017). After the feedback period, 75% of radiographers estimated stroke as a more severe disease than before. Also, their desire for feedback decreased significantly (p = 0.007). Primarily patient cases with unfavorable outcomes were remembered by the staff. Systematic email feedback does not per se enhance work satisfaction or work meaningfulness among employees. However, receiving feedback is educative for the staff. Evaluating work satisfaction and the perception of treatment may help to identify unexpected issues and may therefore help to find specific measures that increase work satisfaction and motivation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
During a period of 6 months, we provided our entire neuroradiological staff including physicians, radiographers, and researchers with systematic feedback via email on the further clinical course of stroke patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy. We analyzed the effects of this feedback on work satisfaction, work meaningfulness and valuation of the therapy among our staff.
METHODS
Our staff completed two self-reported questionnaires before and after the period of six months with systematic feedback.
RESULTS
Employees with higher work meaningfulness and higher work satisfaction valuated endovascular stroke therapy as more useful (p<0.001). A good clinical outcome was regarded more motivating than a good interventional outcome (p<0.001). Receiving systematic feedback did not increase work satisfaction (p = 0.318) or work meaningfulness (p = 0.178). Radiographers valuated the usefulness of interventional therapy the worst of all employees (p≤ 0.017). After the feedback period, 75% of radiographers estimated stroke as a more severe disease than before. Also, their desire for feedback decreased significantly (p = 0.007). Primarily patient cases with unfavorable outcomes were remembered by the staff.
CONCLUSIONS
Systematic email feedback does not per se enhance work satisfaction or work meaningfulness among employees. However, receiving feedback is educative for the staff. Evaluating work satisfaction and the perception of treatment may help to identify unexpected issues and may therefore help to find specific measures that increase work satisfaction and motivation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34010332
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251889
pii: PONE-D-21-03388
pmc: PMC8133452
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0251889Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Clin Radiol. 2000 Aug;55(8):602-5
pubmed: 10964730
World J Radiol. 2013 Nov 28;5(11):386-97
pubmed: 24349643
Int J Nurs Pract. 2018 Apr;24(2):e12620
pubmed: 29368384
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 1;372(1):11-20
pubmed: 25517348
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Nov;173(5):1169-72
pubmed: 10541082
J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):326-8
pubmed: 23850325
Insights Imaging. 2010 Jan;1(1):2-11
pubmed: 22347897
J Neurointerv Surg. 2019 Feb 26;:
pubmed: 30808653
Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):245-54
pubmed: 24449944
Stroke. 2012 Oct;43(10):2810-3
pubmed: 22910895
Acad Radiol. 2019 Apr;26(4):526-533
pubmed: 30711406
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2285-95
pubmed: 25882376
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Apr 26;16(9):
pubmed: 31027333
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 May;13(5):582-4
pubmed: 26747720
Pediatr Radiol. 2016 Nov;46(12):1645-1650
pubmed: 27488506
Acad Radiol. 2013 Jun;20(6):778-81
pubmed: 23664403
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Nov;96(6):1296-1303
pubmed: 32776664
Br J Radiol. 2017 Dec;90(1080):20170473
pubmed: 28972807
Stroke. 2019 Aug;50(8):2140-2146
pubmed: 31216965
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1019-30
pubmed: 25671798
J Appl Psychol. 2000 Apr;85(2):237-49
pubmed: 10783540
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1009-18
pubmed: 25671797
Psychooncology. 2016 Feb;25(2):194-202
pubmed: 26239424
Radiol Med. 2007 Oct;112(7):1069-84
pubmed: 17952674
Eur J Neurol. 2016 Apr;23(4):807-16
pubmed: 26850793
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 May;13(5):562-5
pubmed: 26922596
Lancet Neurol. 2009 Oct;8(10):949-58
pubmed: 19747656
J Am Coll Radiol. 2012 Jan;9(1):64-8
pubmed: 22221638
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2296-306
pubmed: 25882510
J Nurs Manag. 2020 Apr;28(3):710-717
pubmed: 32106347
Stroke. 2019 Apr;50(4):880-888
pubmed: 30827193
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Jul;30(3):447-8
pubmed: 25190974
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Stroke. 2019 Sep;50(9):2500-2506
pubmed: 31337298
Rand Health Q. 2014 Dec 1;3(4):1
pubmed: 28083306
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Jan;13(1):14-18
pubmed: 32414889