Search

Introduction: The reform of the health and social services in Finland includes the modernization of both work processes and facilities. This means a transition to patient reception rooms and office facilities that are in shared use. However, research on the associations of shared workspaces with well-being is rare. The aim of this study is to investigate how healthcare professionals rate the functionality of the shared workspaces and how it is associated with work engagement and perceived stress. Methodology: Questionnaires were administered in five healthcare organizations (N=329). Pearson's correlation coefficients and linear regression were used to test which functionality factors of shared workspaces were associated with work engagement and perceived stress. Unadjusted models, as well as models adjusted for age, gender, managerial position, and use of spaces, are reported. Results: The perception of the safety of the facilities was the strongest predictor of work engagement and perceived stress in shared patient reception rooms. Furthermore, the perceptions on how well the facilities supported interaction and collaboration between teams/units predicted work engagement and perceived stress in both reception rooms and activity-based workspaces (ABW). Positive ratings of how well the facilities supported interaction and collaboration were associated with higher work engagement and lower stress. The perceived availability of spaces for quiet work predicted higher work engagement but not perceived stress. However, when adjusted for the use of spaces (assigned or non-assigned seating), non-assigned seating emerged as a stronger predictor of work engagement than perceived availability for quiet spaces. Given that disturbance of speech was common in ABWs, organizations and designers should focus on creating ABWs that enable undisturbed interaction and collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Promoting health is an important part of occupational health (OH) professionals' daily practice. Occupational health services (OHS) support work ability and prevent both work-related diseases and lifestyle-related illnesses. OBJECTIVE: We focused on how interprofessional collaboration (IPC), regardless of whether the OHS provider is public, private or in-house, influences the implementation of smoking cessation treatment and support (SCTS). We studied IPC of OH professionals in SCTS and whether they differ depending on OHS providers. METHODS: We collected data through an online survey of a cross-sectional sample of OH professionals of physicians (n = 182), nurses (n = 296) and physiotherapists (n = 96) at two different time-points, in 2013 and 2017. The questionnaire contained questions on interprofessional SCTS practices, so that we could assess how the professionals' experiences differed from each other. We used explanatory factor analysis to study the collaboration, and the Kruskall–Wallis test to detect the differences between the OH professional groups as a post-hoc data analysis. Background: OH physicians (mean 3.4, SD 1.2) and OH nurses (mean 3.2, SD 1.1) experienced smooth collaboration in SCTS whereas OH physiotherapists (mean 2.5, SD 1.1) felt excluded from IPC. In-house OH centres (mean 3.5, SD 1.0) seemed to offer the best opportunities for implementing IPC in SCTS comparing to public (mean 3.1, SD 0.9) or private (mean 2.9, SD 0.9) OHS. CONCLUSION: The IPC of OH professionals in SCTS interventions need to be rearranged. This requires boundary-crossing SCTS practices involving all professionals. All OH professionals should implement IPC in SCTS and share their specific competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]