Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36523243›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Inpatient clinician workload: a scoping review protocol to understand the definition, measurement and impact of non-procedural clinician workloads.

Erica Mitchell Smith, Angela Keniston, Christine Cara Welles, Nemanja Vukovic, Lauren McBeth, Ben Harnke, Marisha Burden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Erica Mitchell SmithDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA erica.3.smith@cuanschutz.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9764-4555
Angela KenistonDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Christine Cara WellesDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Nemanja VukovicDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Lauren McBethDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Ben HarnkeStrauss Health Sciences Library, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Marisha BurdenDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
University of Colorado Hospital · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · US

Funding

Rocky Mountain Center for Total Worker HealthU19OH011227 · OH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI NEWMAN, LEE S · 2016 to 2025
$11.3M
NIOSH CDC HHS U19 OH011227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinicians that care for hospitalised patients face unprecedented work conditions with exposure to highly infectious disease, exceedingly high patient numbers, and unpredictable work demands, all of which have resulted in increases in stress and burnout. Preliminary studies suggest that increasing workloads negatively affect inpatient clinician well-being and may negatively affect job performance; yet high workloads may be prioritised secondary to financial drivers or from workforce shortages. Despite this, the correlation between workload and these negative outcomes has not been fully quantified. Additionally, there are no clear measures for inpatient clinician workload and no standards to define ideal workloads. Using the protocol described here, we will perform a scoping review of the literature to generate a comprehensive understanding of how clinician workload of medical patients is currently defined, measured in clinical settings and its impact on the workforce, patients and institutional outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the methodology outlined by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley to conduct a comprehensive search of major electronic databases including Ovid Medline (PubMed), Embase (Embase.com), PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Google Scholar. All relevant published peer-reviewed and dissertaion grey literature will be included. Data will be extracted using a standardised form to capture key article information. Results will be presented in a descriptive narrative format. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval though all included studies will be screened to ensure appropriate approval. The synthesis of this literature will provide a better understanding of the current state of work for inpatient clinicians, associated outcomes, and will identify gaps in the literature. These findings will be used in conjunction with an expert Delphi panel to identify measures of inpatient clinician workload to then guide the development of a novel workforce mobile application to actively track clinician work. We aim to lay the groundwork for future workforce studies to understand the optimal workloads that drive key outcomes for clinicians, patients and institutions.

Indexed as

InpatientsWorkloadHumansPeer ReviewResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicWorkforceGENERAL MEDICINE (see Internal Medicine)Health economicsHealth policyINTERNAL MEDICINEPRIMARY CAREQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36523243
PMCPMC9748947
OpenAlexW4311223638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.