4.5 Editorial Material

Workplace Bullying in Surgery

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 40, 期 11, 页码 2560-2566

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3642-7

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to determine the extent and nature of workplace bullying among General Surgery trainees and consultants in Australia. An online questionnaire survey of General Surgery trainees and consultant surgeons in Australia was conducted between March and May 2012. Prevalence of bullying was measured using both a definition of workplace bullying and the revised Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R). Sources of bullying were also examined, as well as the barriers and outcomes of formal reporting of bullying. The response rate was 34 % (370/1084) with 41 % (n = 152) of respondents being trainees. Overall, 47 % (n = 173) of respondents reported having been bullied to some degree and 68 % (n = 250) reported having witnessed bullying of surgical colleagues in the last 12 months. The prevalence of bullying was significantly higher in trainees and females, with 64 % of trainees and 57 % of females experiencing some degree of bullying. The majority of respondents (83 %) had experienced at least one negative behavior in the last 12 months, but 38 % experienced at least one negative behavior on a weekly or daily basis. The persistent negative behaviors that represent work-related bullying most commonly experienced were 'having opinions ignored' and 'being exposed to an unmanageable workload.' Consultant surgeons were the most common source of bullying for both trainees and consultants, with administration the next common source. Of those who reported being bullied, only 18 % (n = 32) made a formal complaint. Despite increased awareness and interventions, workplace bullying remains a significant problem within General Surgery in Australia. The findings in this study serve as a baseline for future questionnaires to monitor the effectiveness of implemented anti-bullying interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据