4.1 Article

The Effect of Facilitated Peer Support Sessions on Burnout and Grief Management among Health Care Providers in Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A Pilot Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 15, 期 11, 页码 1178-1180

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2012.0231

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Children admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) face potentially life limiting conditions. The toll on heath care professionals caring for these children is significant and often overlooked. There is a potential need for increased staff support, and facilitated peer support sessions could be an effective management tool, but few studies specifically evaluate this multidisciplinary population. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the current rates of grief and burnout among health care professionals in our PICU, and explore facilitated support sessions as a method of reducing grief perceptions and burnout among providers. Methods: A convenience sample of approximately 50 interdisciplinary professionals was invited to participate. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) and Hogan Grief Reaction Checklist (HGRC) were administered before and after two interactive, facilitated peer support sessions in a pretest/posttest design. Results: The results of pretest/posttest CBI and HGRC instruments did not indicate statistically significant changes. It is notable that the instruments indicated low levels of grief and burnout among participants pre-/post-implementation. Conclusions: While facilitated peer support did not reduce grief and burnout scores among our PICU interdisciplinary staff, many factors could have affected results, including small sample size, potentially different participants across sessions, timing of sessions, and the timing of administration of posttest instruments. Additionally, even though not statistically significant, the area of personal growth showed a trend toward improvement, indicating an area for further research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据