Leadership program with skills training for general practitioners was highly accepted without improving job satisfaction: the cluster randomized IMPROVEjob study.

Leadership has become an increasingly important issue in medicine as leadership skills, job satisfaction and patient outcomes correlate positively. Various leadership training and physician psychological well-being programmes have been developed internationally, yet no standard is established in primary care. The IMPROVEjob leadership program was developed to improve job satisfaction among German general practitioners and practice personnel. Its acceptance and effectiveness were evaluated. The IMPROVEjob intervention is a participatory, interdisciplinary and multimodal leadership intervention that targets leadership, workflows and communication in general practices using three elements: (1) two leadership workshops with skills training; (2) a toolbox with printed and online material, and (3) a 9-month implementation phase supported by facilitators. A cluster-randomised trial with a waiting-list control evaluated the effectiveness on the primary outcome job satisfaction assessed by the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (range 0-100). A mixed-methods approach with questionnaires and participant interviews evaluated the acceptance of the intervention and factors influencing the implementation of intervention content. Statistical analyses respected the clustered data structure. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated intervention adjustments: online instead of on-site workshops, online material instead of facilitator practice visits. Overall, 52 of 60 practices completed the study, with altogether 70 practice leaders, 16 employed physicians, and 182 practice assistants. According to an intention-to-treat analysis, job satisfaction decreased between baseline and follow-up (not significantly) in the total study population and in both study arms, while the subgroup of practice leaders showed a non-significant increase. A mixed multilevel regression model showed no effect of the intervention on job satisfaction (b = - 0.36, p > 0.86), which was influenced significantly by a greater sense of community (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). The acceptance of the IMPROVEjob workshops was high, especially among practice leaders compared to assistants (1 = best to 5 = worst): skills training 1.78 vs. 2.46, discussions within the practice team 1.87 vs. 2.28, group discussions 1.96 vs. 2.21. The process evaluation revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic complicated change processes and delayed the implementation of intervention content in practice routines. The workshops within the participatory IMPROVEjob intervention were rated very positively but the multimodal intervention did not improve job satisfaction 9 months into the pandemic. Qualitative data showed an impairment of implementation processes by the unforeseeable COVID pandemic.Trial registration Registration number: DRKS00012677 on 16/10/2019.

Higher Work-Privacy Conflict and Lower Job Satisfaction in GP Leaders and Practice Assistants Working Full-Time Compared to Part-Time: Results of the IMPROVEjob Study.

BACKGROUND: Work-privacy conflict (WPC) has become an important issue for medical professionals. The cluster-randomized controlled IMPROVEjob study aimed at improving job satisfaction (primary outcome), with additional outcomes such as examining the work-privacy conflict in German general practice personnel. Using baseline data of this study, the relationship between work-privacy conflict and job satisfaction (JS) was analyzed. In addition, factors associated with higher WPC were identified. METHODS: At baseline, 366 participants (general practitioners (GPs) in leadership positions, employed general practitioners, and practice assistants) from 60 German practices completed a questionnaire addressing socio-demographic data and job characteristics. Standardized scales from the German version of the COPSOQ III requested data concerning job satisfaction and work-privacy conflict. Both scores range from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). Multilevel analysis accounted for the clustered data. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS and RStudio software, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Job satisfaction was 77.16 (mean value; SD = 14.30) among GPs in leadership positions (n = 84), 79.61 (SD = 12.85) in employed GPs (n = 28), and 72.58 (SD = 14.42) in practice assistants (n = 254). Mean values for the WPC-scale were higher for professionals with more responsibilities: GPs in leadership positions scored highest with 64.03 (SD = 29.96), followed by employed physicians (M = 45.54, SD =30.28), and practice assistants (M = 32.67, SD = 27.41). General practitioners and practice assistants working full-time reported significantly higher work-privacy conflict than those working part-time (p < 0.05). In a multilevel analysis, work-privacy conflict was significantly associated with job satisfaction (p < 0.001). A multiple regression analysis identified working hours, as well as and being a practice owner or an employed physician as factors significantly influencing WPC. DISCUSSION: WPC was high among general practice leaders and practice personnel working full-time. Future interventions to support practice personnel should focus on reducing WPC, as there is good evidence of its effects on job satisfaction.

[Psychological stress caused by epidemics among health care workers and implications for coping with the corona crisis: a literature review]. / Psychische Belastungen durch Epidemien bei Beschäftigten im Gesundheitswesen und Implikationen für die Bewältigung der Corona-Krise: eine Literaturübersicht.

Psychological stress caused by epidemics among health care workers and implications for coping with the corona crisis: a literature review Objectives: COVID-19 has significantly changed the working and living conditions within a short period. Despite the milder course of the disease in comparison to other countries, employees in the German health care system are particularly affected by the massive impact of the disease on their professional and private lives. From a scientific point of view, summarized empirical evidence made during other epidemics and at the beginning of the COVID-19-pandemic is largely missing. Methods: Narrative review article, literature search on PubMed database. Results: A total of 56 studies were included, 35 of them on the SARS epidemic and seven on COVID-19; included studies reported overall increased stress levels, anxiety and PTSD symptoms due to health care work during various epidemics. Direct contact with patients, quarantine experiences and perceived health risks were further stress factors in epidemics. Participation in intervention studies enabled better management of epidemic-related situations. Conclusions: Healthcare workers are exposed to high workloads because of epidemics, which can have a variety of adverse effects. Recommendations are made for dealing with periods of high exposure during the COVID-19-pandemic.