Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27(2):125-133
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20150023
To evaluate the prevalence of burnout syndrome among nursing workers in intensive care units and establish associations with psychosocial factors.
This descriptive study evaluated 130 professionals, including nurses, nursing technicians, and nursing assistants, who performed their activities in intensive care and coronary care units in 2 large hospitals in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Data were collected in 2011 using a self-reported questionnaire. The Maslach Burnout Inventory was used to evaluate the burnout syndrome dimensions, and the Self Reporting Questionnaire was used to evaluate common mental disorders.
The prevalence of burnout syndrome was 55.3% (n = 72). In the quadrants of the demand-control model, low-strain workers exhibited a prevalence of 64.5% of suspected cases of burnout, whereas high-strain workers exhibited a prevalence of 72.5% of suspected cases (p = 0.006). The prevalence of suspected cases of common mental disorders was 27.7%; of these, 80.6% were associated with burnout syndrome (< 0.0001). The multivariate analysis adjusted for gender, age, educational level, weekly work duration, income, and thoughts about work during free time indicated that the categories associated with intermediate stress levels - active work (OR = 0.26; 95%CI = 0.09 - 0.69) and passive work (OR = 0.22; 95%CI = 0.07 - 0.63) - were protective factors for burnout syndrome.
Psychosocial factors were associated with the development of burnout syndrome in this group. These results underscore the need for the development of further studies aimed at intervention and the prevention of the syndrome.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2014;26(3):292-298
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20140041
The nursing workload consists of the time spent by the nursing staff to perform the activities for which they are responsible, whether directly or indirectly related to patient care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nursing workload in an adult intensive care unit at a university hospital using the Nursing Activities Score (NAS) instrument.
A longitudinal, prospective study that involved the patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a university hospital between March and December 2008. The data were collected daily to calculate the NAS, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS-28) of patients until they left the adult intensive care unit or after 90 days of hospitalization. The level of significance was set at 5%.
In total, 437 patients were evaluated, which resulted in an NAS of 74.4%. The type of admission, length of stay in the intensive care unit and the patients' condition when leaving the intensive care unit and hospital were variables associated with differences in the nursing workload. There was a moderate correlation between the mean NAS and APACHE II severity score (r=0.329), the mean organic dysfunction SOFA score (r=0.506) and the mean TISS-28 score (r=0.600).
We observed a high nursing workload in this study. These results can assist in planning the size of the staff required. The workload was influenced by clinical characteristics, including an increased workload required for emergency surgical patients and patients who died.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2009;21(3):276-282
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2009000300007
OBJECTIVE: The understanding of adverse events may simplify the inquiry regarding the quality of nursing care, presuming a foregrounding role in evaluating health services. The aim of the study was to identify adverse events in nursing care in an intensive care unit. METHODS: Data were collected using an appropriate form known as problem-oriented record (POR) over a 10-month period; patients were monitored throughout their intensive care unit stay. RESULTS: Over the study period, 550 adverse events were recorded as follows: 26 concerned the "five rights" related to drug administration; 23 to non-administered medication; 181 to inappropriate medication records; 28 to failure in infusion pump assembly; 17 to not performed inhalation; 8 to incorrect handling of needles and syringes; 53 to not performed nursing procedures; 46 to incorrect handling of therapeutic and diagnostic devices; 37 to alarms/warnings of devices used incorrectly; and 131 to failure in data recording by nurses. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of adverse events in the care given to patients by the nursing team are significant indicators that disclose the quality of nursing care. Therefore, these events should be analyzed to support in-service training of the nursing staff.