ABSTRACT
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop a “Multidisciplinary Collaboration Ability Scale (MCAS)” and examine the reliability and validity for medical professionals engaged in cancer care. Method: The first MCAS draft was created, and the content validity and surface validity of the scale were examined for medical professionals. Next, a cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted on medical professionals engaged in cancer care who worked in medical institutions. Exploratory factor analysis and known-groups technique were carried out, coefficient α calculated, and concurrent validity examined. This study was conducted with the approval of the research ethics review. Result: Exploratory factor analysis resulted in 33 items of 4 factors (ability to promote discussion, foundational relationship building, self-control, and problem-solving activities). The MCAS score was significantly higher for those who had participated in a multidisciplinary workshop and those who had more years of experience. Coefficient α for the entire scale and for each factor was .80 and above. Examination of concurrent validity showed a moderate correlation. Conclusion: The reliability and validity of MCAS in its development stage were generally verified.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>Objectives</b> : Many reports have investigated the work environment of physicians and reported the association between work environment, burnout, and the quality of medical care. We aimed to determine the key to improving the work environment by analyzing the results of a Japanese survey for young cardiovascular surgeons. <b>Methods</b> : A survey on work environment was performed among the young members of The Japanese Society for Cardiovascular Surgery (≤40 years of age) to measure their job satisfaction for 9 items : operation, perioperative work, number of hours working or sleeping, board affairs (application or renewal of board certification), motivation, salary, days off, quality of life, and mental status. Univariate and multivariate analyses using 16 factors for the work environment (age, number of years in practice, gender, subspecialty, board certification in surgery, board certification in cardiovascular surgery, primary practice hospital, workdays and nights on duty in a primary practice setting, workdays and nights on duty outside primary practice, total annual income, overtime work hours, overtime entitlement, gap in overtime work and entitlement, and presence of an intensive care unit [ICU] managed by ICU physicians) were performed to identify the risk factors for dissatisfaction. <b>Results</b> : The survey was completed by 327 of 1,304 (25.1% response rate) young members of the Japanese Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. The respondents had an average of 8.5±3.5 years in practice, and 292 (89.3%) respondents were male. Only 14.2% of the responding young surgeons reported no dissatisfaction in any items. In all items, the young surgeons were most satisfied with operation (34.6% of all responders). Age, years in practice, female gender, board certification in surgery, working at a university hospital, workdays in a primary practice setting, and workdays outside a primary practice setting were identified as significant factors for dissatisfaction, while a subspecialty in vascular surgery, total annual income, board certification in cardiovascular surgery, and the presence of an ICU managed by ICU physicians were identified as significant factors against dissatisfaction in the work environment. <b>Conclusions</b> : Our analyses of the survey results identified a number of risk factors for dissatisfaction in the work environment among young cardiovascular surgeons. Regarding the quality of medical care, respondents hoped for a reduced burden on surgeons and the establishment of a work-shift system in the cardiovascular department and an interdisciplinary team including an ICU physician. Multidimensional analyses including job satisfaction, rewards as training, and a quantitative evaluation of the quality of medical care will be necessary to clarify the corresponding relationship between consumers and providers of cardiovascular surgery in the work environment.</p>