Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 75 residents in the family medicine residency programs in Al Madina, Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was used that includes questions on sociodemographic characteristics and sources of stress and burnout. T test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, and multiple linear regression analysis were employed.
Results: Majority were female (54.7%) and aged 26 to 30 years (84.0%). The significant predictors of burnout in the final model were "tests/examinations" (P = 0.014), "large amount of content to be learnt" (P = 0.016), "unfair assessment from superiors" (P = 0.001), "work demands affect personal/home life" (P = 0.001), and "lack of support from superiors" (P = 0.006).
Conclusion: Burnout is present among family medicine residents at a relatively high percentage. This situation is strongly triggered by work-related stressors, organizational attributes, and system-related attributes, but not socio-demographics of the respondents. Systemic changes to relieve the workload of family medicine residents are recommended to promote effective management of burnout.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented.
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration.
PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the relationship between specific physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions on MSD symptoms among dentists in Malaysia.
METHODS: A group of 85 dentists was asked to complete a questionnaire to determine whether their complaints were related to physical and psychosocial factors and/or ergonomic conditions in their practices.
RESULTS: Among the nine reviewed body areas, the shoulders were most often affected by symptoms of MSDs (92.7%). Moreover, MSDs of the neck and upper back were most likely to prevent these practitioners from engaging in normal activities (32.9%). In general, no significant differences were found in the prevalence of MSD symptoms in relation to gender, age, body mass index, years in practice, number of patients, and frequency of breaks.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results were consistent with those reported in other studies that focused on MSD problems among dentists in other countries. To reduce the prevalence of MSDs, more attention should be paid to instituting ergonomically sensible approaches in the dental practice setting.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A literature review was performed on issues, sources, management and approaches to HISs-induced errors. A critical review of selected models was performed in order to identify medical error dimensions and elements based on human, process, technology and organisation factors.
FINDINGS: Various error classifications have resulted in the difficulty to understand the overall error incidents. Most classifications are based on clinical processes and settings. Medical errors are attributed to human, process, technology and organisation factors that influenced and need to be aligned with each other. Although most medical errors are caused by humans, they also originate from other latent factors such as poor system design and training. Existing evaluation models emphasise different aspects of medical errors and could be combined into a comprehensive evaluation model.
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Overview of the issues and discourses in HIS-induced errors could divulge its complexity and enable its causal analysis.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This paper helps in understanding various types of HIS-induced errors and promising prevention and management approaches that call for further studies and improvement leading to good practices that help prevent medical errors.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Classification of HIS-induced errors and its management, which incorporates a socio-technical and multi-disciplinary approach, could guide researchers and practitioners to conduct a holistic and systematic evaluation.