Article Text
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the well-being experiences of consultants working in paediatric critical care (PCC) settings in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Design Qualitative design using individual interviews and thematic analysis.
Setting PCC.
Participants Eleven medical consultants working in PCC in a range of PCC settings/transport teams in the UK from nine units participated. Participants ranged in years of experience as a consultant from four to 23 years.
Methods A set of open semistructured questions were used to elicit information about participants’ experiences of workplace well-being. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed.
Findings Thematic analysis identified six themes and data saturation was reached. These were as follows: (1) positive and negative impact of working during COVID-19, (2) job satisfaction and public scrutiny in the unique environment of PCC, (3) supporting the workforce through modified shift work, (4) perceptions of support and recognition offered from the hospital management, (5) successful coping strategies are personal and adaptive, and (6) importance of civility and good teamwork
Conclusion Findings show that consultants’ well-being is challenged in a number of ways and that the solutions to the problem of burn-out are multifaceted. Action is required from individual consultants, clinical teams, hospital management and national regulatory bodies. Our work corroborates the recent General Medical Council report highlighting doctors’ core needs for well-being: autonomy, belonging, competence. Burn-out is a long-term problem, requiring sustainable solutions. Future research needs to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions to improve consultants’ well-being. Trials of effectiveness need to present evidence that will persuade hospital management to invest in their consultants’ well-being within the economic context of reduced budgets and limited PCC workforce.
- QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
- PAEDIATRICS
- Paediatric intensive & critical care
- COVID-19
Data availability statement
All available data from the study are included in the article. We did not seek consent from participants to make transcripts available because of possible threats to their anonymity.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All available data from the study are included in the article. We did not seek consent from participants to make transcripts available because of possible threats to their anonymity.
Footnotes
Contributors RM, PD, RS and SS conceptualised the study. RS managed the project as academic supervisor to SS. RM and PD provided clinical supervision. IB supported RS in project management. SS collected the data. SS and IB led the data analysis with contributions from all other authors. IB led the writing of the manuscript with contributions from all other authors. RS is guarantor of the manuscript.
Funding There was no funding for this study as it was undertaken as part of an MSc Health Psychology project at Aston University. IB’s time was funded by Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Paediatric Intensive Care Charity funds through the sWell project, a single site project investigating staff wellbeing in paediatric intensive care at Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Birmingham, UK (Ref: 37-6-124).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.