Work Climate Scale in Emergency Services: Abridged Version
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- -
- The physical environment [29] and its influence on staff satisfaction and performance. A six-dimension instrument that measures the physical environment: ambience (six items, Cronbach’s α 0.86), user-friendliness (six items, Cronbach’s α 0.76), layout (four items, Cronbach’s α 0.71), amenities (three items, Cronbach’s α 0.62), cleanliness (two items, Cronbach’s α 0.76), and adaptability (three items, Cronbach’s α 0.61), and presents values of internal consistency and dimensionality.
- -
- -
- Worker relations [38] and its relationship to job satisfaction. This instrument is comprised of three factors, namely: individual worker relations (three items, Cronbach’s α 0.74), supervisor–worker relations (three items, Cronbach’s α 0.79), and organization–worker relations (three items, Cronbach’s α 0.72). Confirmatory factor analysis indicates a good model fit.
- -
- Aspects related to climate, but without information on the psychometric properties of the instruments used, include the following: (a) safety climate and medical errors [39], focused on contextual factors (physical environment, staffing, equipment and supplies, teamwork, nursing, culture, screening and monitoring, information coordination and consultation, and inpatient coordination) and their incidence on any adverse events that can produce medical errors; (b) intrinsic motivation, team climate, and burnout [40], focused on connections between these three constructs; (c) violence prevention climate [41], focused on patient and staff factors that help prevent violence in emergency services; and (d) healthcare climate [42], a test that measures factors related to the hospital nursing climate, nursing unit climate, climate strength, patient safety, and medication safety.
- -
- Not focused on the work team climate, but integrate climate as part of the general characteristics of the organization, such as the organizational climate [43], organizational culture [44], and organizational climate for quality [45]. Only the last of these proposals report on the psychometric properties of the instruments used, referring to their internal consistency, instrument dimensionality, and concurrent validity.
- -
- Work climate [46], which integrates aspects of work groups and the organization, and measures aspects related to job satisfaction, productivity/achievement of aims, interpersonal relations, and performance at work. This scale is the only one developed for emergency services in a Spanish-speaking cultural context that has good psychometric properties (internal consistency study, content validity, construct validity, and concurrent validity). However, the authors have noted the length of the scale as an impediment, considering that emergency department workers receive more patients than they can handle, making it difficult for them to find the time to complete the survey. In addition, eight items from the original scale presented differential item functioning (DIF).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
2.3. Procedure and Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- El-Hage, W.; Hingray, C.; Lemogne, C.; Yrondi, A.; Brunault, P.; Bienvenu, T.; Etain, B.; Paquet, C.; Gohier, B.; Bennabi, D.; et al. Health professionals facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: What are the mental health risks? L’Encéphale 2020, 46, S73–S80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weziak-Bialowolska, D.; Bialowolski, P.; Leon, C.; Koosed, T.; McNeely, E. Psychological Climate for Caring and Work Outcomes: A Virtuous Cycle. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dishop, C.R.; Green, A.E.; Torres, E.; Aarons, G.A. Predicting Turnover: The Moderating Effect of Functional Climates on Emotional Exhaustion and Work Attitudes. Community Ment. Health J. 2019, 55, 733–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Attia, M.A.S.; Youseff, M.R.L.; El Fatah, S.A.A.; Ibrahem, S.K.; Gomaa, N.A. The relationship between health care providers’ perceived work climate, organizational commitment, and caring efficacy at pediatric intensive care units, Cairo University. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2020, 35, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Myint, N.N.S.; Kunaviktikul, W.; Stark, A. A contemporary understanding of organizational climate in healthcare setting: A concept analysis. Nurs. Forum 2021, 56, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadow, A.J.; Dollard, M.F.; McLinton, S.S.; Lawrence, P.; Tuckey, M.R. Psychosocial safety climate, emotional exhaustion, and work injuries in healthcare workplaces. Stress Health 2017, 33, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altuntaş, S.; Intepeler, Ş.S.; Sökmen, S.; Kantek, F.; Öztürk, H.; Baykal, Ü. The effect of ethical work climate on the organizational citizenship behavior of academic nurses. Int. Nurs. Rev. 2021, 68, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnano, P.; Santisi, G.; Platania, S.; Zammitti, A.; Tous Pallares, J. The Italian Version of the Work Psychosocial Climate Scale (Escala Clima Psicosocial en el Trabajo). WOR 2020, 66, 789–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orsini, C.A.; Tricio, J.A.; Segura, C.; Tapia, D. Exploring teachers’ motivation to teach: A multisite study on the associations with the work climate, students’ motivation, and teaching approaches. J. Dent. Educ. 2020, 84, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivilaki, V.; Athanasiadou, C.; Zemperligkou, E.; Stamatopoulou, M.; Springer, P.; Prezerakos, P. Psychometric Properties of the Greek Culture and Climate Scale for Assessing the Working Conditions of Midwives. Arch. Hell. Med. 2019, 36, 212–217. [Google Scholar]
- Domínguez, A.Q.; Ruiz, M.; Huertas, J.A.; Alonso-Tapia, J. Development and validation of the School Climate Questionnaire for Secondary and High School Teachers (SCQ-SHST). An. Psicol. 2019, 36, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, N.; Teague, G.B.; Wolf, J.; Rosen, C. Organizational Climate and Support among Peer Specialists Working in Peer-Run, Hybrid and Conventional Mental Health Settings. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2019, 47, 150–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, S.; Hann, M.; Bradley, F.; Elvey, R.; Fegan, T.; Halsall, D.; Hassell, K.; Wagner, A.; Schafheutle, E.I. Organisational factors associated with safety climate, patient satisfaction and self-reported medicines adherence in community pharmacies. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2020, 16, 895–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llanos, R.M. Insatisfacción laboral como predictor del ausentismo en un hospital público. Rev. Med. Chile 2015, 143, 1028–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, P.R.; Calnan, M.W. Chains of (dis)trust: Exploring the underpinnings of knowledge-sharing and quality care across mental health services. Sociol. Health Illn. 2016, 38, 286–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortini, M.; Pivetti, M.; Cervai, S. Learning Climate and Job Performance among Health Workers. A Pilot Study. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Delforge, J.; Sovaila, S.; Alix, L.; Didon, A.; Steichen, O.; Ranque, B.; Froissart, A.; Amadou, K.; Hanslik, T.; Cador, B.; et al. Characteristics of Patients Admitted from Emergency Units in 18 Internal Medicine Departments and Organisation of These Departments: A Cross Sectional Study from SNFMI (SiFMI Study Group) in 2015. Rev. Méd. Int. 2021, 42, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trebach, J.D.; Levy, M.; Ali, F.; Beauchamp, G.; Biary, R.; Nrp, C.E.; Margolis, A.; Nawrocki, P.S.; Wendell, J.C.; Zour, J.; et al. Establishing Consensus-based Objectives for the Creation of an Opioid Overdose Curriculum for Emergency Medical Services Clinicians. AEM Educ. Train. 2021, 5, e10499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holzinger, F.; Oslislo, S.; Cantu, R.R.; Möckel, M.; Heintze, C. Diverting less urgent utilizers of emergency medical services to primary care: Is it feasible? Patient and morbidity characteristics from a cross-sectional multicenter study of self-referring respiratory emergency department consulters. BMC Res. Notes 2021, 14, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metelmann, B.; Brinkrolf, P.; Kliche, M.; Vollmer, M.; Hahnenkamp, K.; Metelmann, C. Rettungsdienst, kassenärztlicher Notdienst oder Notaufnahme: Es gelingt der Bevölkerung nur unzureichend, die richtige Ressource für medizinische Akutfälle zu wählen. Med. Klin. Intensiv. Notf. 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bijani, M.; Abedi, S.; Karimi, S.; Tehranineshat, B. Major challenges and barriers in clinical decision-making as perceived by emergency medical services personnel: A qualitative content analysis. BMC Emerg. Med. 2021, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xuereb, C.B.; Shaw, R.L.; Lane, D.A. Patients’ and physicians’ experiences of atrial fibrillation consultations and anticoagulation decision-making: A multi-perspective IPA design. Psychol. Health 2015, 31, 436–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Behnke, A.; Rojas, R.; Gärtner, A. Emotionsregulation im Rettungsdienst: Zusammenhänge mit beruflichem Stress, Belastungssymptomatik und Arbeitszufriedenheit von Beschäftigten im Rettungsdienst. Pravent. Gesundh. 2021, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vagni, M.; Maiorano, T.; Giostra, V.; Pajardi, D. Coping With COVID-19: Emergency Stress, Secondary Trauma and Self-Efficacy in Healthcare and Emergency Workers in Italy. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 566912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hruska, B.; Barduhn, M.S. Dynamic psychosocial risk and protective factors associated with mental health in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 282, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyron, M.J.; Rees, C.S.; Lawrence, D.; Carleton, R.N.; McEvoy, P.M. Prospective risk and protective factors for psychopathology and wellbeing in civilian emergency services personnel: A systematic review. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 281, 517–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caricati, L.; Panari, C.; Melleri, M. Group identification and self-efficacy associated with quality of life in emergency medical services volunteers: A cross-sectional investigation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2020, 50, 476–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefurak, T.; Morgan, R.; Johnson, R.B. The Relationship of Public Service Motivation to Job Satisfaction and Job Performance of Emergency Medical Services Professionals. Public Pers. Manag. 2020, 49, 590–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinke, C. Assessing the Physical Service Setting: A Look at Emergency Departments. Herd Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2015, 8, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Carvalho, R.E.F.L.; Cassiani, S.H.D.B. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire—Short Form 2006 for Brazil. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2012, 20, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castilho, D.E.C.; Silva, A.E.B.D.C.; Gimenes, F.R.E.; Nunes, R.D.L.S.; Pires, A.C.A.C.; Bernardes, C.A. Factors related to the patient safety climate in an emergency hospital. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2020, 28, e3273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sexton, J.B.; Helmreich, R.L.; Neilands, T.B.; Rowan, K.; Vella, K.; Boyden, J.; Roberts, P.R.; Thomas, E.J. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: Psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2006, 6, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Malinowska-Lipień, I.; Brzyski, P.; Gabryś, T.; Gniadek, A.; Kózka, M.; Kawalec, P.; Brzostek, T.; Squires, A. Cultural adaptation of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire—Short Form (SAQ-SF) in Poland. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mielke, J.; De Geest, S.; Beckmann, S.; Leppla, L.; Luta, X.; Guerbaai, R.-A.; Hunziker, S.; Schwendimann, R. The German version of the high-performance work systems questionnaire (HPWS-G) in the context of patient safety: A validation study in a Swiss university hospital. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sørskår, L.I.K.; Olsen, E.; Abrahamsen, E.B.; Bondevik, G.T.; Abrahamsen, H.B. Assessing safety climate in prehospital settings: Testing psychometric properties of a common structural model in a cross-sectional and prospective study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2019, 19, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sørskår, L.I.K.; Abrahamsen, E.B.; Olsen, E.; Sollid, S.J.M.; Abrahamsen, H.B. Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the hospital survey on patient safety culture in a prehospital environment. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018, 18, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patterson, P.D.; Huang, D.T.; Fairbanks, R.J.; Wang, H.E. The Emergency Medical Services Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Am. J. Med. Qual. 2010, 25, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biggs, D.M.; Swailes, S.; Baker, S. The measurement of worker relations: The development of a three-component scale. Lead. Organ. Dev. J. 2016, 37, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camargo, C.A.; Tsai, C.-L.; Sullivan, A.F.; Cleary, P.D.; Gordon, J.A.; Guadagnoli, E.; Kaushal, R.; Magid, D.J.; Rao, S.R.; Blumenthal, D. Safety Climate and Medical Errors in 62 US Emergency Departments. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2012, 60, 555–563.e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khazei, M.; Shukor, A.R.; Biotech, M. A Novel Instrument for Integrated Measurement and Assessment of Intrinsic Motivation, Team Climate, and Burnout in Multidisciplinary Teams. Perm. J. 2020, 24, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunero, S.; Lamont, S.; Dunn, S.; Varndell, W.; Dickens, G.L. Examining the utility of the Violence Prevention Climate scale: In a metropolitan Australian general hospital. J. Clin. Nurs. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zohar, D.; Livne, Y.; Tenne-Gazit, O.; Admi, H.; Donchin, Y. Healthcare climate: A framework for measuring and improving patient safety. Crit. Care Med. 2007, 35, 1312–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noguera Arzamendia, J.R.; Samudio, M. Diagnóstico Del Clima Organizacional Del Hospital Central de Las Fuerzas Armadas de Paraguay. Mem. Inst. Investig. Cienc. Salud 2014, 12, 14–25. [Google Scholar]
- Looi, E.S.Y.; Greatbanks, R.; Everett, A.M. Alignment of governance and senior executive perceptions of culture. J. Health Organ. Manag. 2016, 30, 927–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pogorzelska-Maziarz, M.; Nembhard, I.M.; Schnall, R.; Nelson, S.; Stone, P.W. Psychometric Evaluation of an Instrument for Measuring Organizational Climate for Quality: Evidence from a National Sample of Infection Preventionists. Am. J. Med. Qual. 2016, 31, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanduvete-Chaves, S.; Lozano-Lozano, J.A.; Chacón-Moscoso, S.; Holgado-Tello, F.P. Development of a Work Climate Scale in Emergency Health Services. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Intestcom.Org. Available online: https://www.intestcom.org/page/28 (accessed on 28 April 2021).
- Kleka, P.; Soroko, E. How to Abbreviate Questionnaires and Avoid the Sins? Surv. Res. Methods 2018, 12, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, G.T.; McCarthy, D.M.; Anderson, K.G. On the sins of short-form development. Psychol. Assess. 2000, 12, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krogsgaard, M.R.; Brodersen, J.; Christensen, K.B.; Siersma, V.; Jensen, J.; Hansen, C.F.; Engebretsen, L.; Visnes, H.; Forssblad, M.; Comins, J.D. How to translate and locally adapt a PROM. Assessment of cross-cultural differential item functioning. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2021, 31, 999–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holgado-Tello, F.P.; Carrasco-Ortiz, M.Á.; Del Barrio-Gándara, M.V.; Chacón-Moscoso, S.; Barrio-Gándara, M.V. Factor analysis of the Big Five Questionnaire using polychoric correlations in children. Qual. Quant. 2007, 43, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holgado-Tello, F.P.; Morata-Ramirez, M.Á.; García, M.I.B. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables: A Simulation Study Comparing the Main Estimation Methods. Psicol. Latinoam. 2018, 36, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 1992, 21, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendayan, R.; Blanca, M.J.; Fernández-Baena, J.F.; Escobar, M.; Trianes, M.V. New Empirical Evidence on the Validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in Early Adolescents. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2013, 29, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. SPSS Inc LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide; Scientific Software International: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996; ISBN 978-0-89498-040-4. [Google Scholar]
- Salgado, M.A.; Medina-Giacomozzi, A.I. Satisfacción laboral y clima organizacional en funcionarios de atención primaria de salud de una comuna en Chile. Rev. Méd. Risaralda 2019, 25, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunstedt, H.; Eriksson, M.; Obeid, A.; Hillström, L.; Truong, A.; Pennbrant, S. Salutary factors and hospital work environments: A qualitative descriptive study of nurses in Sweden. BMC Nurs. 2020, 19, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberson, L. Prediction of job satisfaction from characteristics of personal work goals. J. Organ. Behav. 1990, 11, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bipp, T.; Kleingeld, A. Goal-setting in practice: The Effects of Personality and Perceptions of the Goal-setting Process on Job Satisfaction and Goal Commitment. Pers. Rev. 2011, 40, 306–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Li, J.; Sun, G.; Cheng, Z.; Zhang, X.-A. Achievement goals and life satisfaction: The mediating role of perception of successful agency and the moderating role of emotion reappraisal. Psicol. Reflex. Crít. 2017, 30, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collard, S.S.; Scammell, J.; Tee, S. Closing the gap on nurse retention: A scoping review of implications for undergraduate education. Nurse Educ. Today 2020, 84, 104253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Broetje, S.; Jenny, G.J.; Bauer, G.F. The Key Job Demands and Resources of Nursing Staff: An Integrative Review of Reviews. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Simone, S.; Planta, A. L’intenzione di lasciare il lavoro nel personale infermieristico: Il ruolo della soddisfazione lavorativa, dell’autoefficacia e del work engagement. Med. Lav. 2017, 108, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hämmig, O. Explaining burnout and the intention to leave the profession among health professionals—A cross-sectional study in a hospital setting in Switzerland. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lozano, J.A.L.; Moscoso, S.C.; Sanduvete-Chaves, S.; Gil, J.A.P. Principales componentes del clima laboral en el servicio de urgencias de una organización sanitaria: Un abordaje cualitativo [Main components of organizational climate in an emergency medical service: A qualitative approach]. Acción Psicol. 2014, 10, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kc, D.; Tushe, S. The Effects of Multisiting on Productivity and Quality. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furunes, T.; Kaltveit, A.; Akerjordet, K. Health-promoting leadership: A qualitative study from experienced nurses’ perspective. J. Clin. Nurs. 2018, 27, 4290–4301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newgard, C.D.; Morris, C.D.; Smith, L.; Cook, J.N.; Yealy, N.M.; Collins, S.; Holmes, J.F.; Kuppermann, N.; Richardson, L.D.; Kimmel, S.; et al. The First National Institutes of Health Institutional Training Program in Emergency Care Research: Productivity and Outcomes. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2018, 72, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinton, D.; Sanchez, L.D. Management of the Academic Emergency Department. Emerg. Med. Clin. N. Am. 2020, 38, 715–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.C.; Scott, A.; Sundararajan, V.; Yan, W.; Yong, J. An Examination of Public Hospital Productivity and its Persistence: An Index Number Approach. Aust. Econ. Rev. 2020, 53, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewa, C.S.; Loong, D.; Bonato, S.; Thanh, N.X.; Jacobs, P. How does burnout affect physician productivity? A systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Villeval, M.C. Performance Feedback and Peer Effects. In Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics; Zim-mermann, K.F., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–38. ISBN 978-3-319-57365-6. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, M.; Savva, N.; Scholtes, S. Economies of Scale and Scope in Hospitals: An Empirical Study of Volume Spillovers. Manag. Sci. 2021, 67, 673–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard, J.C.; Scharff, D.P.; Koors, V.; Lerner, E.B.; Adelgais, K.M.; Anders, J.; Brown, K.; Babcock, L.; Lichenstein, R.; Lillis, K.A.; et al. A Qualitative Assessment of Factors That Influence Emergency Medical Services Partnerships in Prehospital Research. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2012, 19, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maoz-Breuer, R.; Berkowitz, O.; Nissanholtz-Gannot, R. Integration of the first physician assistants into Israeli emergency departments—The physician assistants’ perspective. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2019, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bochatay, N.; Bajwa, N.M.; Cullati, S.; Muller-Juge, V.; Blondon, K.S.; Perron, N.J.; Maître, F.; Chopard, P.; Vu, N.V.; Kim, S.; et al. A Multilevel Analysis of Professional Conflicts in Health Care Teams: Insight for Future Training. Acad. Med. 2017, 92, S84–S92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rathert, C.; Ishqaidef, G.; Porter, T.H. Caring work environments and clinician emotional exhaustion: Empirical Test of an Exploratory Model. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2020. publish ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duddle, M.; Boughton, M. Development and psychometric testing of the Nursing Workplace Relational Environment Scale (NWRES). J. Clin. Nurs. 2008, 18, 902–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engelen, L.; Dhillon, H.; Chau, J.Y.; Hespe, D.; Bauman, A.E. Do active design buildings change health behaviour and workplace perceptions? Occup. Med. 2016, 66, 408–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Larson, D.B.; Mickelsen, L.J.; Garcia, K. Realizing Improvement through Team Empowerment (RITE): A Team-based, Project-based Multidisciplinary Improvement Program. RadioGraphics 2016, 36, 2170–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chmielewski, N.A.; Tomkin, T.; Edelstein, G. A Systems Approach to Front-End Redesign With Rapid Triage Implementation. Adv. Emerg. Nurs. J. 2021, 43, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chacón-Moscoso, S.; Sanduvete-Chaves, S.; Sánchez-Martín, M. The Development of a Checklist to Enhance Methodological Quality in Intervention Programs. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broeck, A.V.D.; Vansteenkiste, M.; De Witte, H.; Lens, W. Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work. Stress 2008, 22, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kline, P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis; Routledge: London, UK, 1994; ISBN 978-0-415-09490-0. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Convergence of Structural Equation Modeling and Multilevel Modeling. In The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2011; pp. 562–589. ISBN 978-1-4129-4648-3. [Google Scholar]
- Devon, H.A.; Block, M.E.; Moyle-Wright, P.; Ernst, D.M.; Hayden, S.J.; Lazzara, D.J.; Savoy, S.M.; Kostas-Polston, E. A Psychometric Toolbox for Testing Validity and Reliability. J. Nurs. Sch. 2007, 39, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | N (%) | |
---|---|---|
Gender | Women | 52 (41.3) |
Men | 74 (58.7) | |
Age | 18–40 | 10 (81.0) |
41–60 | 23 (18.3) | |
>60 | 1 (0.8) | |
Profession | Emergency technicians | 44 (34.9) |
Nurses | 35 (27.8) | |
Doctors | 30 (23.8) | |
Service assistants | 9 (7.1) | |
Administrative personnel | 6 (4.8) | |
Security personnel | 2 (1.6) | |
Type of employment contract | Indefinite contract | 102 (81.0) |
Training contract | 9 (7.1) | |
Temporary contract (part-time) | 8 (6.3) | |
Temporary contract | 7 (5.6) |
Iterative Review Process | Item | SD | ID | α | ω | RI | VI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stage 1 | 1 | 0.80 | 0.62 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.49 | 0.28 |
2 * | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.49 | 0.21 | |
3 * | 0.74 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.45 | 0.24 | |
4 | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.54 | 0.26 | |
5 * | 0.82 | 0.51 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.42 | 0.22 | |
6 * | 1.04 | 0.40 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.41 | 0.36 | |
7 ** | 0.94 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.38 | 0.22 | |
8 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.30 | |
9 | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.39 | 0.21 | |
10 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.48 | 0.19 | |
Stage 2 | 1 | 0.80 | 0.63 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.50 | 0.28 |
4 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.55 | 0.26 | |
8 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.52 | 0.30 | |
9 ** | 0.56 | 0.75 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.42 | 0.21 | |
10 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.47 | 0.19 | |
Stage 3 | 1 | 0.80 | 0.60 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.48 | 0.28 |
4 | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.54 | 0.26 | |
8 | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.51 | 0.30 | |
10 | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.45 | 0.19 |
Factor | Item | SD | ID | α If the Item Is Deleted | ω If the Item Is Deleted | RI | VI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1: Work satisfaction (α = 0.88; ω = 0.89) | 1 | 0.80 | 0.62 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.49 | 0.28 |
2 * | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.49 | 0.21 | |
3 * | 0.74 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.45 | 0.24 | |
4 | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.54 | 0.26 | |
5 * | 0.82 | 0.51 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.42 | 0.22 | |
6 * | 1.04 | 0.40 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.41 | 0.36 | |
7 ** | 0.94 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.38 | 0.22 | |
8 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.30 | |
9 ** | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.85 | 0.87 | 0.39 | 0.21 | |
10 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.48 | 0.19 | |
Factor 2: Productivity/achievement of aims (α = 0.93; ω = 0.93) | 11 | 0.84 | 0.67 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.36 | 0.57 |
12 | 0.82 | 0.64 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.27 | 0.52 | |
13 ** | 0.87 | 0.48 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.18 | 0.42 | |
14 | 0.98 | 0.56 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.21 | 0.55 | |
15 | 0.92 | 0.63 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.31 | 0.58 | |
16 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.35 | 0.54 | |
17 | 0.83 | 0.68 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.34 | 0.57 | |
18 * | 0.92 | 0.68 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.46 | 0.63 | |
19 | 1.12 | 0.65 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.63 | 0.73 | |
20 ** | 0.93 | 0.50 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.35 | 0.47 | |
21 | 1.10 | 0.64 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.56 | 0.70 | |
22 | 1.01 | 0.52 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.32 | 0.53 | |
23 * | 0.93 | 0.70 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.47 | 0.65 | |
24 ** | 1.01 | 0.37 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.20 | 0.38 | |
25 ** | 0.78 | 0.55 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.31 | 0.43 | |
26 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.32 | 0.49 | |
27 * | 1.07 | 0.61 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.59 | 0.66 | |
28 | 0.81 | 0.67 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.39 | 0.54 | |
29 * | 1.15 | 0.54 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.47 | 0.62 | |
30 | 0.82 | 0.60 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.30 | 0.49 | |
Factor 3: Interpersonal relations (α = 0.89; ω = 0.89) | 31 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.57 | 0.64 |
32 | 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.57 | 0.63 | |
33 | 0.73 | 0.76 | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.47 | 0.56 | |
34 ** | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.40 | 0.47 | |
35 | 0.77 | 0.73 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.56 | |
Factor 4: Performance at work (α = 0.84; ω = 0.84) | 36 | 0.85 | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.79 | 0.48 | 0.59 |
37 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.27 | 0.45 | |
38 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.39 | 0.56 | |
39 | 0.87 | 0.62 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.22 | 0.54 | |
40 ** | 0.69 | 0.56 | 0.84 | 0.83 | 0.22 | 0.38 |
Factor | Item | SD | ID | α If the Item Is Deleted | ω If the Item Is Deleted | RI | VI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1: Work satisfaction (α = 0.84; ω = 0.85) | 1 | 0.80 | 0.56 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.44 | 0.28 |
4 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.46 | 0.26 | |
8 | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.50 | 0.30 | |
10 | 0.71 | 0.59 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.42 | 0.19 | |
Factor 2: Productivity/achievement of aims (α = 0.90; ω = 0.90) | 11 | 0.84 | 0.72 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.61 | 0.36 |
12 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.54 | 0.27 | |
14 | 0.98 | 0.52 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.51 | 0.21 | |
15 | 0.92 | 0.60 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.55 | 0.31 | |
16 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.53 | 0.35 | |
17 | 0.83 | 0.67 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.55 | 0.34 | |
19 | 1.12 | 0.55 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.62 | 0.63 | |
21 | 1.10 | 0.52 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.57 | 0.56 | |
22 | 1.01 | 0.46 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.46 | 0.32 | |
26 | 0.75 | 0.68 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.51 | 0.32 | |
28 | 0.81 | 0.68 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.55 | 0.39 | |
30 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.54 | 0.30 | |
Factor 3: Interpersonal relations (α = 0.88; ω = 0.89) | 31 | 0.84 | 0.57 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.48 | 0.57 |
32 | 0.80 | 0.52 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.42 | 0.57 | |
33 | 0.73 | 0.57 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.42 | 0.48 | |
35 | 0.77 | 0.63 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.49 | 0.55 | |
Factor 4: Performance at work (α = 0.8; ω = 0.84) | 36 | 0.85 | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 0.48 |
37 | 0.72 | 0.57 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.41 | 0.27 | |
38 | 0.78 | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.52 | 0.39 | |
39 | 0.87 | 0.50 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.44 | 0.22 |
Original Version (40 Items) | Abridged Version (24 Items) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Items | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 |
1. We take pride in our work | 0.69 | 0.68 | ||||||
2. We seek to understand the needs of our clients | 0.64 | |||||||
3. We readily adapt to new circumstances | 0.51 | |||||||
4. We strive to achieve successful outcomes | 0.71 | 0.84 | ||||||
5. We have experience to do our work well | 0.40 | |||||||
6. Our workday is adequate to develop our work | 0.68 | |||||||
7. Good relations with the other services | 0.87 | |||||||
8. Relevance of the job of each member | 0.73 | 0.85 | ||||||
9. Our work is important | 0.73 | |||||||
10. We develop our skills and knowledge | 0.69 | 0.76 | ||||||
11. Our work group is known for quality work | 0.64 | 0.82 | ||||||
12. We have a common purpose | 0.75 | 0.76 | ||||||
13. We have the necessary infrastructure | 0.75 | |||||||
14. We receive the necessary training | 0.74 | 0.60 | ||||||
15. The characteristics of our service are appropriate | 0.76 | 069 | ||||||
16. Our service works correctly | 0.76 | 0.80 | ||||||
17. Our work group is known for its productivity | 0.64 | 0.77 | ||||||
18. We feel motivated doing our work | 0.71 | |||||||
19. The merit of our good job is recognized | 0.73 | 0.61 | ||||||
20. Our colleagues value our profession | 0.77 | |||||||
21. We are appreciated for the work we do | 0.87 | 0.58 | ||||||
22. Our specialization is recognized | 0.73 | 0.52 | ||||||
23. Our expectations have been fulfilled | 0.79 | |||||||
24. Our type of patient fits with the service | 0.65 | |||||||
25. We know our patients’ characteristics | 0.79 | |||||||
26. We coordinate with the other hospital services | 0.55 | 0.78 | ||||||
27. We are recognized for our individual contributions | 0.81 | |||||||
28. We have a plan that guides our activities | 0.72 | 0.78 | ||||||
29. We participate in the decisions of our group | 0.82 | |||||||
30. We know what is expected in our work | 0.71 | 0.75 | ||||||
31. We have good communication within the group | 0.86 | 0.87 | ||||||
32. Good relationship between members | 0.81 | 0.79 | ||||||
33. I feel comfortable with my work group | 0.87 | 0.85 | ||||||
34. I have good personal relationships | 0.84 | |||||||
35. We work in a good work group climate | 0.90 | 0.95 | ||||||
36. We understand each other’s capabilities | 0.64 | 0.92 | ||||||
37. I know my professional shortcomings | 0.64 | 0.72 | ||||||
38. We know the functions of the members | 0.67 | 0.84 | ||||||
39. Our patients fit the specialty of our service | 0.68 | 0.68 | ||||||
40. We know our shortcomings as a group | 0.55 | |||||||
F2 | 0.73 | 0.88 | ||||||
F3 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.51 | 0.60 | ||||
F4 | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.62 |
Score Assigned on the Scale (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | M | SD | |
Factor 1. Work Satisfaction | 1.4 | 0.4 | 5.4 | 22.0 | 70.8 | 4.60 | 0.73 |
1. We take pride in our work | 1.6 | 0.8 | 7.1 | 22.2 | 68.2 | 4.55 | 0.80 |
2. We strive to achieve successful outcomes | 1.6 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 23.0 | 73.0 | 4.66 | 0.68 |
3. Relevance of the job of each member | 1.6 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 19.0 | 73.0 | 4.62 | 0.75 |
4. We develop our skills and knowledge | 0.8 | 0.8 | 5.6 | 23.8 | 69.0 | 4.60 | 0.71 |
Factor 2. Productivity/Achievement of aims | 1.9 | 5.0 | 17.9 | 38.9 | 36.2 | 4.02 | 0.96 |
5. Our work group is known for quality work | 1.6 | 1.6 | 11.9 | 41.3 | 43.7 | 4.24 | 0.84 |
6. We have a common purpose | 0.8 | 1.6 | 11.9 | 27.0 | 58.7 | 4.41 | 0.82 |
7. We receive the necessary training | 0.8 | 8.7 | 19.0 | 36.5 | 34.9 | 3.96 | 0.98 |
8. The characteristics of our service are appropriate | 1.6 | 3.2 | 16.7 | 36.5 | 42.1 | 4.14 | 0.92 |
9. Our service works correctly | 0.8 | 1.6 | 20.6 | 55.6 | 21.4 | 3.95 | 0.75 |
10. Our work group is known for its productivity | 1.6 | 0.8 | 16.7 | 44.4 | 36.5 | 4.13 | 0.83 |
11. The merit of our good job is recognized | 5.6 | 17.5 | 27.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 3.38 | 1.12 |
12. We are appreciated for the work we do | 4.0 | 15.9 | 27.8 | 32.5 | 19.8 | 3.48 | 1.10 |
13. Our specialization is recognized | 4.0 | 5.6 | 25.4 | 41.3 | 23.8 | 3.75 | 1.01 |
14. We coordinate with the other hospital services | 0.8 | 0.8 | 9.5 | 43.7 | 45.2 | 4.32 | 0.74 |
15. We have a plan that guides our activities | 0.8 | 1.6 | 15.9 | 42.9 | 38.9 | 4.17 | 0.81 |
16. We know what is expected in our work | 0.8 | 1.6 | 12.7 | 31.7 | 53.2 | 4.35 | 0.82 |
Factor 3. Interpersonal relationships | 1.0 | 1.0 | 12.1 | 41.5 | 44.4 | 4.27 | 0.79 |
17. We have good communication within the group | 0.8 | 1.6 | 16.7 | 37.3 | 43.7 | 4.21 | 0.83 |
18. Good relationship between members | 0.8 | 1.6 | 15.1 | 43.7 | 38.9 | 4.18 | 0.80 |
19. I feel comfortable with my work group | 0.8 | 0.8 | 7.9 | 42.1 | 48.4 | 4.37 | 0.73 |
20. We work in a good work group climate | 1.6 | 0.0 | 8.7 | 42.9 | 46.8 | 4.33 | 0.77 |
Factor 4. Performance at work | 1.4 | 2.0 | 8.1 | 35.7 | 52.8 | 4.36 | 0.82 |
21. We understand each other’s capabilities | 1.6 | 2.4 | 8.7 | 39.7 | 47.6 | 4.29 | 0.85 |
22. I know my professional shortcomings | 0.8 | 1.6 | 4.0 | 31.0 | 62.7 | 4.53 | 0.72 |
23. We know the functions of the members | 1.6 | 1.6 | 3.2 | 28.6 | 65.1 | 4.54 | 7.78 |
24. Our patients fit the specialty of our service | 1.6 | 2.4 | 16.7 | 43.7 | 35.7 | 4.10 | 0.87 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lozano-Lozano, J.A.; Chacón-Moscoso, S.; Sanduvete-Chaves, S.; Holgado-Tello, F.P. Work Climate Scale in Emergency Services: Abridged Version. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126495
Lozano-Lozano JA, Chacón-Moscoso S, Sanduvete-Chaves S, Holgado-Tello FP. Work Climate Scale in Emergency Services: Abridged Version. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(12):6495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126495
Chicago/Turabian StyleLozano-Lozano, José Antonio, Salvador Chacón-Moscoso, Susana Sanduvete-Chaves, and Francisco Pablo Holgado-Tello. 2021. "Work Climate Scale in Emergency Services: Abridged Version" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 12: 6495. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126495