METHODS: A cross-sectional study (n = 230) was conducted using the Pressure Management Inventory on several female dominated health professions within a large public hospital. Analysis of variance was used to show relationship between sources and outcome of pressure. Linear regressions were used to predict which sources of pressure (IV) was linked to the outcomes of occupational pressure (DV).
RESULTS: The number one source of occupational pressure is relationships at work (i.e. with supervisors), and not workload. 'Relationship' is also the key predictor of several negative outcomes of pressure at work. Analysis of variance showed significant differences in two sources of pressures, i.e. Workload (P = 0.04) and Home-work balance (P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: This paper provides insights into the occupational pressure of women health professionals by highlighting the organisational sources of pressure and the implications for preventing occupational dysfunction secondary to stress at work.
Methods: This study, stratified in pre-, during, and post-intervention periods, was conducted between February 2017 and March 2018 in two wards at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia. Hand hygiene promotion was facilitated either by PICAs (study arm 1) or MSCAs (study arm 2), and the two wards were randomly allocated to one of the two interventions. Outcomes were: 1) perceived leadership styles of PICAs and MSCAs by staff, vocalised during question and answer sessions; 2) the social network connectedness and communication patterns between HCWs and change agents by applying social network analysis; and 3) hand hygiene leadership attributes obtained from HCWs in the post-intervention period by questionnaires.
Results: Hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved by from 48% (95% CI: 44-53%) to 66% (63-69%), and from 50% (44-55%) to 65% (60-69%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two arms. Healthcare workers perceived that PICAs lead by example, while MSCAs applied an authoritarian top-down leadership style. The organisational culture of both wards was hierarchical, with little social interaction, but strong team cohesion. Position and networks of both PICAs and MSCAs were similar and generally weaker compared to the leaders who were nominated by HCWs in the post-intervention period. Healthcare workers on both wards perceived authoritative leadership to be the most desirable attribute for hand hygiene improvement.
Conclusion: Despite experiencing successful hand hygiene improvement from PICAs, HCWs expressed a preference for the existing top-down leadership structure. This highlights the limits of applying leadership models that are not supported by the local organisational culture.