Search

Background: High levels of stress and burnout, documented among healthcare professionals, result in high levels of job turnover. However, little is known about personal strategies employed by advanced practice providers (APPs) to mitigate stress. Methods: 3,939 APPs were invited to complete an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey to examine work stress and burnout among APPs using quantitative and qualitative analyses. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) served as the measure for burnout. Work-stress reduction strategies were identified by an open-ended question. Findings: 854 APPs (70% of 1,218 respondents) (nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse midwives, anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists) from four different United States health systems completed the free text portion of the survey. Qualitative analyses revealed that almost all of the APPs (94%) reported at least one stress reduction strategy. Four main themes were derived from the free-text responses: “Self-focused” (67.5%), “relational-focused”(16.1%), “job-focused” (11.5%) and “nothing” (4.9%). Quantitative results from the MBI revealed high levels of burnout among APPs with insignificant differences between those who provided a response to the qualitative question and those who did not: emotional exhaustion ( p = .188); depersonalization ( p = .265); personal accomplishment ( p = .213). Conclusion/Application to Practice: Qualitative results highlighted strategies, many evidence-based, that APPs use to mitigate stress. Further research is needed to determine the frequency and consistency of APPs’ enactment of personal strategies. These initial findings provide insights for occupational health practitioners and researchers planning primary prevention and secondary interventions for improving workplace health, enhancing personal wellness, and reducing job-related stressors.

Objectives Over 50 million people in the USA are enrolled in a Medicaid Managed Care plan. If they do not select a primary care provider, they are auto-assigned to one. The impact of auto-assignment has largely been understudied outside the context of patient satisfaction with the insurance plan. The purpose of the study was to explore the association between auto-assignment and flu vaccination use, which will contribute to our understanding of factors influencing the COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Methods Retrospective data from the Enterprise Data Warehouse of a health system were obtained for adult Medicaid enrolees assigned to a Midwestern health system in 2019. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests and tetrachoric correlations were used to explore the relationship between auto-assignment and flu vaccine receipt among a large sample of Illinois residents (N = 7224). The sample was then divided into those who chose their provider (n = 6027) and those who were auto-assigned (n = 1197). Key findings Individuals who selected their provider were deemed to have flu vaccine coverage over those who were auto-assigned (33.2% vs. 6.6%). Furthermore, among those who were auto-assigned, age, number of office visits and having chronic morbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < 0.01), diabetes (P < 0.01) and heart failure (P < 0.01), were positively associated with flu vaccine receipt. Conclusions Individuals who are auto-assigned to a primary care provider are less likely to be flu vaccine recipients than those who choose their provider. This suggests that auto-assignment is a risk factor that influences vaccine receipt. This research provides perspectives for outreach efforts that target individuals who are auto-assigned to a provider.

Unresolved work stress contributes to burnout, compassion fatigue, disengagement, and other work-contextualized factors. The impact of occupational stressors extends to the organization in a negative fashion as well. In 2017, advanced practice providers (APPs) from four health systems, including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, and physician assistants, participated in a quantitative online cross-sectional survey; 754 participants responded to a free-text question related to work stress and work–family balance. Suggested organizational strategies were ordered into 29 codes, 10 subthemes, and four main themes: “reduce job stressors,” “improve leadership and operations,” “promote APP well-being,” and “maintain the status quo.” Findings are consistent with other research related to occupational stress with many of the reported strategies considered as evidence-based. Targeted interventions for reducing job stress will need to include improved autonomy for APPs, role delineation, support for work–family balance, and better communication as part of management practices.

Aims The aims of the study were to compare characteristics, resources, benefits and outcomes of academic-clinical collaborations of nursing researcher leaders from academic, clinical and joint-employer sites. Background Few research-based publications addressed academic-clinical research collaborations. New knowledge could increase nursing and multidisciplinary research productivity, including implementation science. Design An anonymous survey using a 40-item questionnaire. Methods Information letters with a link to the questionnaire were emailed to United States nursing research leaders. Data were grouped by institution type: academic, clinical or joint-employer. Analyses included Kruskal-Wallis tests for ordered responses, Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical responses and Cohen's Kappa agreement statistic for expected and actual time devoted to research. STROBE guidelines were followed. Results Of 120 respondents from academic (n = 60; 50.0%), clinical (n = 53; 41.2%) and joint-employer (n = 7; 5.8%) sites, 78.3%, 92.3% and 100%, respectively, were from metropolitan areas. Mean (SD) priority for active collaborations was higher at joint-employer sites; p = .002. Clinical sites were more likely to have directors of evidence-based practice (p = .031) and informatics (p = .008) and librarians (p = .029). Sites with collaborations were more likely to have access to research subjects (p = .008) and post-award research account management (p = .045). By collaboration status, there were no differences in the number of ethics board-approved studies. Collaborating site benefits were perceived to be executive leadership support (p = .003), greater research engagement by clinical nurses (p = .048), more co-authored publications (p = .048) and more abstracts accepted at national meetings (p = .044). Despite more resources and perceived benefits, outcomes did not differ by collaboration status. Conclusions Sites with and without academic-clinical research collaborations differed; however, outcomes were similar. Future efforts should focus on nurse scientist collaboration to address important clinical questions aimed at improving clinical outcomes. Relevance to clinical practice Despite some successful outcomes, potential benefits of academic-clinical research collaborations have not been fully actualised.

This study sought to examine the experiences of advanced practice providers (APPs) as an approach to inform the development of formalized programs for transition into practice and to compare APP ( N = 122) and physician ( N = 84) perceptions of the novice practitioners’ acclimation into a provider role within the first year of practice. Using a cross-sectional survey design, two separate web-based questionnaires were distributed to APPs and physicians. The APPs’ perspectives echoed findings of earlier studies with regard to perceived confidence, feelings of anxiety/fear, and inadequacy. In 16 of 23 paired items, physicians and APPs had similar perspectives about confidence/competence after orientation. Significant differences in their perceptions included amount of physician support, time management, length of time to become a fully functional APP, and independence. Better understanding of the perceptions of APPs and physicians can augment APP preparation for a shifting workforce composition and team-based, interprofessional practice designed to meet the population’s health care needs.

Background Minimal research exists on how engagement, burnout, work-family balance, and job stressors impact advanced practice nurses and physician assistants, collectively referred to advanced practice providers (APPs). Purpose To investigate the interrelationships among burnout, job stressors, work-family balance, and engagement with APPs. Methods An online questionnaire was distributed to APPs working in four healthcare systems. A total of 1,216 APPs completed the survey. A hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling. Findings There was a high correlation of job stressors with development of burnout. A significant negative effect between job stress and work engagement was supported; however, indirect effects of stress through job burnout had a stronger impact on work engagement. Higher levels of work-family balance contributed to a lower level of stress experienced by providers. Discussion Organizational leaders desiring to improve employee engagement and reduce burnout need to focus on the significance of work-family balance to job stressors.

Compassion fatigue (CF) is prevalent in healthcare professionals, particularly in those caring for chronic, acutely ill, and/or those patients who might be moving toward comfort care. Over time, CF can lead to burnout (BO) and secondary traumatic stress and an overall decrease in professional quality of life. In this pilot study, participants completed a resiliency program focused on education about CF and self-awareness of its individualized impact and were expected to develop ongoing self-care practices to prevent/address the untoward effects.Healthcare professionals ( N = 15) participated in a formalized educational program consisting of three 90-minute educational sessions held 2 weeks apart. Preassessment and postintervention data were collected electronically in survey format. A postprogram evaluation was also offered.Upon completion of the program, participants noted an increase in compassion satisfaction (CS) and a small reduction in BO. Secondary traumatic stress remained unchanged. Feedback about the program was positive, and participants reported the impact on their clinical practice and life to be moderately high. At 6 months, over half of the participants continued to report positive impact on their personal/professional lives.While the small sample size of this pilot study limits the generalizability of the findings, there were positive effects for CS and BO in participants over time, indicating possible benefits of providing self-care education to healthcare providers. Additional research with a larger sample size is needed to address how healthcare providers might further benefit from resiliency education and interventions to improve professional quality of life.

Introducing a new competency into nursing practice requires the support of nursing leadership. A knowledge survey was used to assess nurses' knowledge following a yearlong genomics education initiative. Findings indicate that nurses benefit from repeated exposure to genetics-related content. Recommendations from this study include development and implementation of strategies that can be used to prepare nurses at all levels for the application of genetics and genomics. Clinical nurses with knowledge of genetics will be able to implement evidence-based interventions to manage acute and chronic illnesses. These nurses will then be able to engage patients more fully, thereby helping them to understand the relationship of genetics to healthy outcomes.