ArticleBMC health services research2025
Association of emergency department nurse and physician work environment agreement on clinician job and patient outcomes.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Informing Hospital Physician Well-Being Interventions in Europe and the US.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Emergency department workplace violence: Clinician-endorsed strategies informing prevention mandates.Nursing outlookArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency medicine is a highly interdisciplinary field, and emergency nurses and physicians have high rates of burnout compared to other specialties. National and international agencies prioritize investments in systems-based solutions to improve clinicians' work environments. The objective of this study was to determine whether emergency department (ED) clinicians agree on the quality of work environments, and whether their agreement is associated with job outcomes, patient safety, and quality of care.
methodsThis cross-sectional study used data from 1,604 ED nurses (n = 1,190) and physicians (n = 414) who completed the 2021 US Clinician Wellbeing Study in 47 Magnet hospitals. A K-means algorithm classified hospitals into 'profiles' based on nurse and physician agreement on work environment assessments. Hospital-level linear regression models determined the relationship between hospital profiles and clinician job and patient outcomes.
resultsThe overall clinician sample (n = 1,604) was on average 39.4 years of age (SD = 11.2), 72.3% female, with 8.3 years of experience (SD = 7.9), 77.7% White, and 93.6% non-Hispanic. Two hospital profiles indicated clinician agreement: "Agree, Unfavorable Environment" (n = 10 hospitals), and "Agree, Favorable Environment" (n = 15); the third profile indicated disagreement: "Disagree, Less Favorable Environment among Nurses" (n = 22). There were no hospital profiles with physicians rating their work environment less favorably than nurses. Compared to the "Agree, Favorable Environment" hospitals, the "Agree, Unfavorable Environment" and "Disagree, Less Favorable among Nurses" hospitals were associated with higher burnout (e.g., β = 25.8%, 95% CI 11.6, 40.1, p <.001 and β = 15.4, 95% CI 3.7, 27.2, p <.001, respectively), job dissatisfaction, and intent to leave; and unfavorable patient care quality and unfavorable patient safety grades (e.g., β = 29.1%, 95% CI 18.4, 39.8, p <.001 and β = 11.9%, 95% CI 3.0, 20.8, p <.01, respectively).
conclusionsIn this cross-sectional study, emergency nurses and physicians in almost half of study hospitals disagreed on the quality of the work environment, suggesting that two essential collaborators in high-stakes care do not agree on deficiencies in ED work environments. Sustainable systems-based solutions to improve ED work environments involve bridging these disparate workplace experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.