4.5 Article

Work Fatigue in a Hospital Setting: The Experience at Cheng Hsin General Hospital

Journal

HEALTHCARE
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9060776

Keywords

fatigue; medical staff; hospital setting

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated fatigue and its related factors in a medical professional population in Taipei, Taiwan. The prevalence of personal- and work-related fatigue was found to be high, especially in physicians and nurses. Lower seniority was also associated with severe personal- or work-related fatigue. Providing controlled working environments and health improvements is important for this population.
We aimed to investigate fatigue and its related factors in a medical professional population aged >= 30 years, as appraised by the implementation of an employee health screening program at Cheng Hsin General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. The study participants included a total of 2132 (400 males and 1732 females) healthy medical professionals enrolled in a teaching hospital who underwent physical verification in 2019. Demographic characteristics and fatigue information were collected. The overall prevalence of personal- and work-related fatigue in this study population was 41.4% and 39.1%, respectively. The prevalence of a high risk of work- or personal-related fatigue proved to be substantially greater (p-value for chi-square test <0.0001) than it was for a low or moderate risk of personal-related fatigue. Using multinominal logistic regression analysis, seniority and position were statistically significant in relation to a high risk of personal- and work-related fatigue. Personal- and work-related fatigue were found to be prevalent in physicians and nurses. Lower seniority was also related to severe personal- or work-related fatigue. Providing this population with controlled working environments and health improvements is important.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available