4.3 Article

Through doctors' eyes: A qualitative study of hospital doctor perspectives on their working conditions

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 874-891

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12037

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundHospital doctors face significant challenges in the current health care environment, working with staff shortages and cutbacks to health care expenditure, alongside increased demand for health care and increased public expectations. ObjectiveThis article analyses challenges faced by junior hospital doctors, providing insight into the experiences of these frontline staff in delivering health services in recessionary times. DesignA qualitative methodology was chosen. MethodsSemi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 doctors from urban Irish hospitals. Interviews were recorded via note taking. Full transcripts were analysed thematically using NVivo software. ResultsDominant themes included the following: (1) unrealistic workloads: characterized by staff shortages, extended working hours, irregular and frequently interrupted breaks; (2) fatigue and its impact: the quality of care provided to patients while doctors were sleep-deprived was questioned; however, little reflection was given to any impact this may have had on junior doctors own health; (3) undervalued and disillusioned: insufficient training, intensive workloads and a perceived lack of power to influence change resulted in a sense of detachment among junior doctors. They appeared immune to their surroundings. ConclusionRespondents ascribed little importance to the impact of current working conditions on their own health. They felt their roles were underappreciated and undervalued by policy makers and hospital management. Respondents were concerned with the lack of time and opportunity for training. This study highlighted several red flags', which need to be addressed in order to increase retention and sustain a motivated junior medical workforce.

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

4.3
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