4.6 Article

Job burnout among critical care nurses from 14 adult intensive care units in northeastern China: a cross-sectional survey

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004813

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Province, China [2013021014]
  2. China Medical University [CMU Internal Circular-J-(2010)-16-31, Internal Circular-F-(2011)-5]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The shortage of qualified nurses is one of the critical challenges in the field of healthcare. Among the contributing factors, job burnout has been indicated as a risk factor for the intention to leave. The purpose of this study was to provide a better understanding of the local status and reference data for coping strategies for intensive care unit (ICU)-nurse burnout among Liaoning ICU nurses. Design: Observational study. Setting: 17 ICUs from 10 tertiary-level hospitals in Liaoning, China. Participants: 431 ICU nurses from 14 ICUs nested in 10 tertiary-level hospitals in Liaoning, China, were invited during October and November 2010. Primary measures: Burnout was measured using the 22-item Chinese version of Maslach Burnout Inventory-Health Service Survey (MBI-HSS) questionnaires. Results: 14 ICUs responded actively and were included; the response rate was 87.7% among the 486 invited participants from these 17 ICUs. The study population was a young population, with the median age 25 years, IQR 23-28 years and female nurses accounted for the major part (88.5%). 68 nurses (16%) were found to have a high degree of burnout, earning high emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation scores together with a low personal accomplishment score. Conclusions: The present study indicated a moderate distribution of burnout among ICU nurses in Liaoning, China. An investigation into the burnout levels of this population could bring more attention to ICU caregivers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available