Assessment of the work environment of multidisciplinary hospital staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to investigate the performance of scales to assess the work environment of hospital professional staff, other than nurses or physicians. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A survey was conducted among professional (non-nursing or medical) staff at a 300-bed urban, university-affiliated Canadian hospital. A total of 24 work environment items were adapted from a scale previously validated among nursing staff. Scales were developed based on a principal components analysis, and were compared among four groups of staff. The relationships between the scales and the following measures were then explored using univariate and multivariate analyses: satisfaction with the work environment, perceived quality of patient care, perceived frequency of patient/family complaints, work-related injuries, and verbal abuse of staff. FINDINGS: The survey response rate was 154/200 (76.6 percent). Four scales were identified (with corresponding Cronbach's alpha), assessing the following aspects of the work environment: supervisory support (0.88), team-work (0.84), professionalism (0.77), and interdisciplinary relations (0.64). In multivariate analyses, there were significant differences between the job groups in all four scales. One or more of the scales was significantly associated with overall satisfaction, perceived quality, and adverse incidents, even after adjustment for other staff characteristics. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Limitations include: the cross-sectional design, subjective measurement of quality of care, small sample sizes in some groups of staff, and the single study site. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The scales developed in this study may be used by managers to assess hospital staff perceptions of the work environment. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The four proposed scales appear to measure meaningful aspects of the working environment that are important in determining overall satisfaction with the work environment and are related to quality of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".