4.1 Article

The relationship of organizational culture, stress, satisfaction, and burnout with physician-reported error and suboptimal patient care: Results from the MEMO study

Journal

HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 203-212

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.HMR.0000281626.28363.59

Keywords

burnout; physicians; professional; psychological; quality of health care; stress

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A report by the Institute of Medicine suggests that changing the culture of health care organizations may improve patient safety. Research in this area, however, is modest and inconclusive. Because culture powerfully affects providers, and providers are a key determinant of care quality, the MEMO study (Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome) introduces a new model explaining how physician work attitudes may mediate the relationship between culture and patient safety. Research Questions: (1) Which cultural conditions affect physician stress, dissatisfaction, and burnout? and (2) Do stressed, dissatisfied, and burned out physicians deliver poorer quality care? Methods: A conceptual model incorporating the research questions was analyzed via structural equation modeling using a sample of 426 primary care physicians participating in MEMO. Findings: Culture, overall, played a lesser role than hypothesized. However, a cultural emphasis on quality played a key role in both quality outcomes. Further, we found that stressed, burned out, and dissatisfied physicians do report a greater likelihood of making errors and more frequent instance of suboptimal I patient care. Practice Implications: Creating and sustaining a cultural emphasis on quality is not an easy,task, but is worthwhile for patients, physicians, and health care organizations. Further, having clinicians who are satisfied and not burned out or,stressed contributes substantially to the delivery of quality care.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available