TY - JOUR
T1 - Uncovering gaps in workforce well-being
T2 - A national look at survey practice in Dutch university medical centres - An exploratory quantitative study
AU - Boskma, A. C.P.
AU - Oerbekke, M. S.
AU - Hooft, L.
AU - Franx, A.
AU - Schaufeli, W.
AU - Van Der Laan, M. J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025.
PY - 2025/7/18
Y1 - 2025/7/18
N2 - Introduction Maintaining a healthy workforce is crucial for safe, high-quality care. To enhance well-being and engagement in Dutch university medical centres (UMCs), an overview of staff well-being and job perceptions is needed first. Surveys are widely used to improve working conditions, but varying questionnaires hinder a comprehensive view. This study aimed to evaluate the content of employee surveys currently used in UMCs in the Netherlands from a well-being perspective and to analyse the survey results at a national level. Methods All seven UMCs were approached to participate in the study and share employee survey data. The primary outcome of interest is work experience; a secondary analysis was conducted. Items were categorised following the Job Demands-Resources model. Descriptive statistics were presented as percentages, means and medians with IQRs. Results Two UMCs participated and 31 862 completed surveys were included. Variation in survey items (eg, 15-18 subcategories, 21-33 question items), response options (eg, 1-5, 1-10), frequency (1-3 times per year) and timing were found. Scores on the following outcomes are presented: work overload, coworker support, job control, organisational justice, participation in decision-making, performance feedback, possibilities for learning and development, recognition, task variety, team atmosphere, team effectiveness, trust in leadership, other job resources, connecting/inspiring leadership, self-efficacy, goal-directiveness, boredom, burnout, job satisfaction, work engagement, other employee well-being, commitment organisation/team and work ability. Results should be interpreted with caution, and solely found for hospital A, for certain job control items, median scores of 2 or 3 were observed, whereas the majority of other question items revealed a median score of 4. Conclusions There is a significant lack of cohesion across employee surveys. As it stands, employee surveys in Dutch UMCs are not effective tools for monitoring the work experience or well-being of the healthcare workforce. While these surveys may support management decisions, this support is not reflected in interventions related to work and the work environment.
AB - Introduction Maintaining a healthy workforce is crucial for safe, high-quality care. To enhance well-being and engagement in Dutch university medical centres (UMCs), an overview of staff well-being and job perceptions is needed first. Surveys are widely used to improve working conditions, but varying questionnaires hinder a comprehensive view. This study aimed to evaluate the content of employee surveys currently used in UMCs in the Netherlands from a well-being perspective and to analyse the survey results at a national level. Methods All seven UMCs were approached to participate in the study and share employee survey data. The primary outcome of interest is work experience; a secondary analysis was conducted. Items were categorised following the Job Demands-Resources model. Descriptive statistics were presented as percentages, means and medians with IQRs. Results Two UMCs participated and 31 862 completed surveys were included. Variation in survey items (eg, 15-18 subcategories, 21-33 question items), response options (eg, 1-5, 1-10), frequency (1-3 times per year) and timing were found. Scores on the following outcomes are presented: work overload, coworker support, job control, organisational justice, participation in decision-making, performance feedback, possibilities for learning and development, recognition, task variety, team atmosphere, team effectiveness, trust in leadership, other job resources, connecting/inspiring leadership, self-efficacy, goal-directiveness, boredom, burnout, job satisfaction, work engagement, other employee well-being, commitment organisation/team and work ability. Results should be interpreted with caution, and solely found for hospital A, for certain job control items, median scores of 2 or 3 were observed, whereas the majority of other question items revealed a median score of 4. Conclusions There is a significant lack of cohesion across employee surveys. As it stands, employee surveys in Dutch UMCs are not effective tools for monitoring the work experience or well-being of the healthcare workforce. While these surveys may support management decisions, this support is not reflected in interventions related to work and the work environment.
KW - Burnout, Professional
KW - Caregiver Burden
KW - Caregivers
KW - Health policy
KW - Occupational Health Services
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105011347843
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094939
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094939
M3 - Article
C2 - 40681190
AN - SCOPUS:105011347843
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 15
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 7
M1 - e094939
ER -