TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals
T2 - A Delphi study
AU - Maassen, Susanne M.
AU - Van Oostveen, Catharina
AU - Vermeulen, Hester
AU - Weggelaar, Anne Marie
N1 - Funding Information:
The research was funded by the Citrien Fonds of ZonMW (grant 8392010042) and conducted on behalf of the Dutch Federation of University Medical Centers' Quality Steering program: https://www.sturenopkwaliteit.nl The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Maassen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Introduction The work environment of healthcare professionals is important for good patient care and is receiving increasing attention in scientific research. A clear and unambiguous understanding of a positive work environment, as perceived by healthcare professionals, is crucial for gaining systematic objective insights into the work environment. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on the concept of a positive work environment in the hospital. Methods This was a three-round Delphi study to establish consensus on what defines a positive work environment. A literature review and 17 semi-structured interviews with experts (transcribed and analyzed by open and thematic coding) were used to generate items for the Delphi study. Results The literature review revealed 228 aspects that were clustered into 48 work environment elements, 38 of which were mentioned in the interviews also. After three Delphi rounds, 36 elements were regarded as belonging to a positive work environment in the hospital. Discussion The work environment is a broad concept with several perspectives. Although all 36 elements are considered important for a positive work environment, they have different perspectives. Mapping the included elements revealed that no one work environment measurement tool includes all the elements. Conclusion We identified 36 elements that are important for a positive work environment. This knowledge can be used to select the right measurement tool or to develop interventions for improving the work environment. However, the different perspectives of the work environment should be considered.
AB - Introduction The work environment of healthcare professionals is important for good patient care and is receiving increasing attention in scientific research. A clear and unambiguous understanding of a positive work environment, as perceived by healthcare professionals, is crucial for gaining systematic objective insights into the work environment. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on the concept of a positive work environment in the hospital. Methods This was a three-round Delphi study to establish consensus on what defines a positive work environment. A literature review and 17 semi-structured interviews with experts (transcribed and analyzed by open and thematic coding) were used to generate items for the Delphi study. Results The literature review revealed 228 aspects that were clustered into 48 work environment elements, 38 of which were mentioned in the interviews also. After three Delphi rounds, 36 elements were regarded as belonging to a positive work environment in the hospital. Discussion The work environment is a broad concept with several perspectives. Although all 36 elements are considered important for a positive work environment, they have different perspectives. Mapping the included elements revealed that no one work environment measurement tool includes all the elements. Conclusion We identified 36 elements that are important for a positive work environment. This knowledge can be used to select the right measurement tool or to develop interventions for improving the work environment. However, the different perspectives of the work environment should be considered.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102096072&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0247530
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0247530
M3 - Article
C2 - 33630923
AN - SCOPUS:85102096072
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 16
JO - PLOS ONE
JF - PLOS ONE
IS - 2 February
M1 - e0247530
ER -