↓ Skip to main content

Perceived barriers and opportunities to improve working conditions and staff retention in emergency departments: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Medicine Journal, January 2024
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 4,588)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
158 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
80 X users

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceived barriers and opportunities to improve working conditions and staff retention in emergency departments: a qualitative study
Published in
Emergency Medicine Journal, January 2024
DOI 10.1136/emermed-2023-213189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo Daniels, Emilia Robinson, Elizabeth Jenkinson, Edward Carlton

Abstract

Staff retention in Emergency Medicine (EM) is at crisis level and could be attributed in some part to adverse working conditions. This study aimed to better understand current concerns relating to working conditions and working practices in Emergency Departments (EDs). A qualitative approach was taken, using focus groups with ED staff (doctors, nurses, advanced care practitioners) of all grades, seniority and professional backgrounds from across the UK. Snowball recruitment was undertaken using social media and Royal College of Emergency Medicine communication channels. Focus group interviews were conducted online and organised by profession. A semi-structured topic guide was used to explore difficulties in the work environment, impact of these difficulties, barriers and priorities for change. Data were analysed using a directive content analysis to identify common themes. Of the 116 clinical staff who completed the eligibility and consent forms, 46 met criteria and consented, of those, 33 participants took part. Participants were predominantly white British (85%), females (73%) and doctors (61%). Four key themes were generated: 'culture of blame and negativity', 'untenable working environments', 'compromised leadership' and 'striving for support'. Data pertaining to barriers and opportunities for change were identified as sub-themes. In particular, strong leadership emerged as a key driver of change across all aspects of working practices. This study identified four key themes related to workplace concerns and their associated barriers and opportunities for change. Culture, working environment and need for support echoed current narratives across healthcare settings. Leadership emerged more prominently than in prior studies as both a barrier and opportunity for well-being and retention in the EM workplace. Further work is needed to develop leadership skills early on in clinical training, ensure protected time to deliver the role, ongoing opportunities to refine leadership skills and a clear pathway to address higher levels of management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 50%
Sports and Recreations 1 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1231. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2024.
All research outputs
#11,174
of 25,378,284 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Medicine Journal
#4
of 4,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228
of 322,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Medicine Journal
#1
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,378,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.