Share this article on:

Empathy and burnout of emergency professionals of a health region: A cross-sectional study

Yuguero, Oriol MD, PhDa,b,*; Forné, Carles MScc,d; Esquerda, Montserrat MD, PhDb,e; Pifarré, Josep MD, PhDb,f; Abadías, María José MDa; Viñas, Joan MD, PhDg

Section Editor(s): Phan., Phil

doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008030
Research Article: Observational Study

The objective of this study is to assess the association between levels of empathy and burnout of emergency professionals in all the assistance levels.

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in the health region of Lleida and the Pyrenees with 100 professionals from the field of Urgency. Participation reached 40.8%. Empathy and burnout were measured using the Spanish versions of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE) and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) respectively. The total MBI score and its 3 dimensions (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment) were analyzed. The JSPE and MBI scores were categorized into tertiles that were identified as “low,” “moderate,” and “high” levels.

The median (interquartile range) was 112 (102–123) and 37 (27–53.5) for the JSPE and MBI scores respectively. Professionals with high burnout (MBI≥47) showed the lowest levels of empathy, that is, JSPE score of 105 (98–114); those with moderate burnout (31≤MBI < 47) had a JSPE score of 114 (104.5–120.5); and those with low burnout (MBI < 31) had a JSPE score of 120.5 (105.8–127.2). In addition, the highest levels of empathy were associated with the lowest levels of burnout, especially in depersonalization, and to a lesser extent in personal accomplishment. There were no differences in empathy and burnout for any of the other study variables.

Our findings suggest that the empathy of emergency professionals is associated with burnout. Hence, reducing professional burnout could help keep emergency professionals’ empathy levels high, which in turn would ensure a better quality of care. Nevertheless, it would be necessary to carry out prospective studies to describe the profiles of burnout and empathy as well as their association and evolution.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

aEmergency Service, University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida

bBiomedical Research Institute of Lleida (IRBLleida)

cBiostatistics Unit, Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida (IRBLleida)

dDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida

eBorja Institute of Bioethics, Barcelona

fMental Health Service, University Hospital Santa Maria

gFaculty of Medicine, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.

Correspondence: Oriol Yuguero, Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital Universitario Arnau de Vilanova de Lleida, Av. Alcalde Rovira Roure, 80, 25198 Lleida, Spain (e-mail: oriol.yuguero@gmail.com).

Abbreviations: ED = emergency department, IQR = interquartile range, JSPE = Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy, MBI = Maslach Burnout Inventory, MBI-DP = depersonalization (dimension of MBI), MBI-EE = emotional exhaustion (dimension of MBI), MBI-PA = personal accomplishment (dimension of MBI), UHAV = University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova.

OY and CF contributed equally to this work.

This study has not been funded by any institution.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website (www.md-journal.com).

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Received March 16, 2017

Received in revised form August 14, 2017

Accepted August 17, 2017

Back to Top | Article Outline

1 Introduction

The emergency department (ED) is a place of stress and multidisciplinary work, with situations linked to a vital risk for patients in many cases. The surveys of quality and satisfaction of patients with health care in Spain (PLAENSA),[1] specifically in the field of Urgency, show the importance of the relationship with the patient as well as the management of information and the confidence shown by the health professional, where empathic skills are fundamental. Empathy has been described as the ability to understand each other's feelings and thoughts and to communicate that understanding.[2] There are many benefits in terms of communication, satisfaction, and therapeutic compliance described with the most empathic professionals.[3–5] Studies on empathy in EDs have focused mainly on nursing staff.[6] Further, its impact on issues of litigation[7] or relation with the religiosity of professionals[8] has also been studied. Researchers at the Yale University[9] looked at whether the empathic ability of emergency room professionals could have an impact when seeking complementary imaging tests.

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of people seeking health care, both in the Hospital EDs and continuing care centers, which can lead to professional burnout. Thus, the degree of burnout has become particularly relevant as professionals have been exposed to greater workload and increased social pressure. The burnout syndrome described by Maslach has 3 dimensions that define it: emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization of the doctor–patient relationship.[10] A study in a United Kingdom hospital described hospital EDs as places with higher occupational stress than other medical services.[11] Another work published in 2015 described that urgent care services could lead to burnout among their professionals.[12] Up to now, burnout levels have been reported in medical students, residents, nursing staff, health technicians, and prehospital care professionals.[13–15]

Recent researches have aimed to identify the association between empathy and burnout. A comment published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings journal[16] reflected on the importance of the empathic ability of health professionals in times of burnout, considering the burden of care, pressure of health managers, and demands of patients, which in many cases have worsened their socioeconomic conditions. A previous study in Lleida on primary care professionals[17] showed that higher levels of empathy are associated with lower burnout. However, the association between burnout and empathy in the whole ED staff has not been analyzed. Nevertheless, we propose this study with the objective of assessing the association between empathy and burnout in ED professionals to promote occupational policies in the future.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Participants and study design

This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted in the health region of Lleida and the Pyrenees. In this health region, there are 5 public hospitals, 3 in mountainous districts, and 2 in the city of Lleida: 1 chronicity-oriented and without an ED and the University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova (UHAV). The UHAV, with 470 beds, is oriented to processes of greater complexity, and is the only hospital with an ED in the city and reference of the territory. These hospitals serve a population of more than 400,000 people. There are also 12 continuous care centers in primary care and 6 mobile units of outpatient emergencies.

All the medical professionals and nurses of the health region who work in public emergency care centers were contacted by emails. At the time of the survey there were 245 professionals working in the centers described above, and a response rate of 40.8% was reached. Participants who voluntarily agreed to participate completed an anonymous survey on burnout and empathy between May and September 2016. Data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.2 Instruments and variables

2.2.1 Assessment of empathy

Empathy was measured using the Spanish version of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE).[18,19] In the JSPE, respondents indicate how strongly they agree, on a scale of 1 to 7, with each of the 20 empathy-related statements in patient care settings. Higher scores in the JSPE indicate more empathy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.2.2 Assessment of burnout

Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)[20] in the version validated in Spanish[21] and previously used in other studies.[17,22,23] The MBI is an instrument of 22 Likert items of 7 points on feelings related to work. Respondents rate how often they experience these feelings on a scale of 0 (never) to 6 (every day). The MBI includes 3 subscales or dimensions: emotional exhaustion (MBI-EE), depersonalization (MBI-DP), and personal accomplishment (MBI-PA). High scores in MBI-EE and MBI-DP and low in MBI-PA correspond to high levels of burnout.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.2.3 Other variables

The following sociodemographic data were recorded: age, sex, profession (emergency medical doctor or nurse), place of professional practice (regional hospital, second-level healthcare hospital, primary care, or outpatient care), years worked in ED, and compatibility with another workplace.

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.3 Statistical analysis

Quantitative variables (MBI and JSPE scores) were described with medians and interquartile ranges (IQR), as they showed a non-normal distribution. Qualitative variables were described with absolute and relative frequencies. The reliability of the MBI and JSPE scales was assessed using the Cronbach alpha. The correlation between the MBI and JSPE scores was assessed by calculating the Spearman rho.

The JSPE and MBI scores were categorized into tertiles identified as “low,” “moderate,” and “high” levels. Bivariate analyses were performed between all the study variables and levels of burnout and empathy. Quantitative variables were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test and the Spearman test for trend. Qualitative variables were analyzed using the Pearson χ 2 test. Additionally, for the ordinal variables, the χ 2 test for trend was also obtained. In the case of global significant differences, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were made by adjusting the P value by the Benjamini–Hochberg method. All the tests were bilateral, setting the significance level to .05. All the analyses were conducted using R (R Development Core Team).

Back to Top | Article Outline

2.4 Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Jordi Gol Institute for Primary Care Research. Maintenance of confidentiality and anonymity of the data was in accordance with the Spanish Data Protection Act 15/1999. Since the database was anonymous, the researchers were unable to identify the study participants at any time.

Back to Top | Article Outline

3 Results

The characteristics of the 100 professionals participating in this study are shown in Table 1. Compared to the nonparticipant population, the study sample included more physicians and workers of the second level hospital. There were no differences in other characteristics (Table S1, Supplemental Material 1, http://links.lww.com/MD/B859, which shows the comparison between participants and nonparticipants).

Table 1

Table 1

The reliability of the scales used was good, except for MBI-DP (Cronbach alpha: .842 for JSPE, .861 for MBI, .887 for MBI-EE, .514 for MBI-DP, .820 for MBI-PA). The median (IQR) JSPE score was 112 (102–123), while for the overall MBI score it was 37 (27–53.5). The JSPE scores were significantly correlated with the burnout scales, except for MBI-EE (Spearman rho (P value): −.323 (.001) with MBI, −.194 (.053) with MBI-EE, −.309 (.002) with MBI-DP, .271 (.006) with MBI-PA).

Table 2 shows the association between burnout and other variables. Significant differences were observed with empathy, with the highest burnout professionals showing the lowest empathy. Figure 1 shows the differences in the distribution of the JSPE score and the trend according to burnout levels. The results of the analysis by empathy levels (Table 3) confirm that the less empathic professionals showed higher levels of burnout, especially in depersonalization, and to a lesser extent in personal accomplishment (Fig. 2).

Table 2

Table 2

Figure 1

Figure 1

Table 3

Table 3

Figure 2

Figure 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

4 Discussion

Empathy of the professionals in the ED is associated with burnout. Those with higher levels of burnout have lower levels of empathy. Previous studies have analyzed either empathy[6–9] or burnout[11,12,14,15] among emergency professionals. The relationship between empathy and well-being has been studied, although only in medical students,[13] certain groups of professionals, such as physicians of different specialities,[24] emergency nurses,[6] or in primary care.[17] Thus, in contrast with our previous work and other previous studies, the main contribution of the present study is that it is the first to assess the association between burnout and lack of empathy in all the emergency professionals, both physicians and nurses, from different levels of health care.

It is important to consider that the ED is often the first contact of citizens with the health system—between 50% and 70% of hospital admissions are from the ED[25]—so, it determines in an important way the image that citizens have of hospitals. Although the assessment of patients on the care provided in the ED shows a high satisfaction, there are points of improvement, especially in aspects such as intimacy, waiting time and information, and relationship with the patient.[1] In an area such as the ED, where patients and their families experience highly stressful situations with added pressure and uncertainty, empathic and communicational abilities of professionals are essential. In addition to promoting and improving communicative skills, it must be considered that the empathy of emergency professionals is essential to avoid unnecessary tests and improve patient care.[16]

We believe that the findings of our study are important because they show that high levels of burnout are associated with lower levels of empathy in emergency professionals. A heavier workload in the ED can lead to situations of high tension that reduce the empathic ability of the professionals, thus affecting the humane treatment and care that must be given to the patient in the emergency room.[26] There are proven strategies to prevent and address burnout syndrome in both professionals and students of medicine or nursing.[27] In addition, interventions aimed at reducing stress could not only reduce burnout, but also improve team cohesion and emotional well-being,[28] a fact that clearly translates into an improvement in the quality of services.[29]

The cross-sectional design of the study supposes its major limitation, since it does not allow establishing of causal relations between empathy and burnout. In addition, we would like to point out that the present study might be underpowered regarding the (unknown) true effect size, in case that the (unknown) true effect was lower than the observed effect size. The participation rate (40.8%) could also entail a risk for the representativeness of the sample and, as consequence, a high risk of selection bias. We considered using multivariable multinomial models to correct for confounding biases. We obtained a significant association between empathy and depersonalization, and a nearly significant association between empathy and personal accomplishment, that became statistically significant when we adjusted for other study variables, like age (results not shown). Emotional exhaustion never showed statistical significance, maybe as consequence of lack of statistical power. Although probably an increased burnout implies loss of empathy, the mechanism of action could be the opposite direction, or even “circular.” Moreover, the effect could be different by levels of health care. Therefore, this study should be considered a pilot study that opens a future line of research that promotes properly designed prospective studies, including a sample size determination based on a realistic hypothesized effect size chosen from a systematic literature review—being aware that these past estimates will themselves tend to overestimate the true effect—and clinical relevance. Such new studies should be able to better describe the empathy and burnout profiles and their associations.

On the other hand, although this study used instruments adapted and validated in our environment and widely used to assess empathy and burnout, both the JSPE and MBI, as well as other psychometric instruments, show certain weaknesses.[30,31] The reliability of the scores in our population was good, except for the depersonalization dimension of MBI, as has been observed in other studies, especially in non-English-speaking populations.[31] Despite the low reliability in the depersonalization dimension, we did not consider deleting items from the questionnaire to improve reliability. The international acceptance of the MBI is an advantage, since it allows comparison of results, development of strategies for prevention, and treatment of the disorder, while encouraging the development of adaptations of the questionnaire.[31]

Our findings suggest that the empathy of emergency professionals is associated with burnout. Hence, reducing professional burnout could help keep emergency professionals’ empathy levels high, which in turn would ensure a better quality of care. To identify interventions aimed at reducing burnout and maintaining high or increasing empathy, it would be necessary to carry out prospective studies to describe the profiles of burnout and empathy as well as their association and evolution.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgments

The authors thank three anonymous referees and the Academic Editor for the useful suggestions and comments that have substantially improved the original version of this paper.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

[1]. Servei Català de la Salut [Catalan Health Service]. Pla d’enquestes de satisfacció (PLAENSA) [Satisfaction Survey Plan]. Updated 2016. Available at: http://catsalut.gencat.cat/web/.content/minisite/catsalut/ciutadania/serveis_atencio_salut/valoracio_serveis_atencio_salut/enquestes_satisfaccio/atencio_urgent_hospitalaria/2016/informe_resultats_globals_atencio_urgent_hospitalaria_2016_es.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2017.
[2]. Hojat M, Gonella JS, Nasca TJ, et al. Physician empathy: definition, components, measurement and relationship to gender and specialty. Am J Psychiatry 2002;159:1563–9.
[3]. Kerasidou A, Horn R. Making space for empathy: supporting doctors in the emotional labour of clinical care. BMC Med Ethics 2016;17:8.
[4]. Zachariae R, Pedersen CG, Jensen AB, et al. Association of perceived physician communication style with patient satisfaction, distress, cancer-related self-efficacy, and perceived control over the disease. Br J Cancer 2003;88:658–65.
[5]. Kelley JM, Kraft-Todd G, Schapira L, et al. The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014;9:e94207.
[6]. Bourgault P, Lavoie S, Paul-Savoie E, et al. Relationship between empathy and well-being among emergency nurses. J Emerg Nurs 2015;41:323–8.
[7]. Smith DD, Kellar J, Walters EL, et al. Does emergency physician empathy reduce thoughts of litigation? A randomised trial. Emerg Med J 2016;33:548–52.
[8]. Duñó R, Díaz-Morán S, Oliva JC, et al. Religiosity and empathy in professionals of a hospital emergency service [Religiosidad y empatía en profesionales de un servicio de urgencias hospitalario]. Emergencias 2014;26:363–6.
[9]. Melnick ER, O’Brien EG, Kovalerchik O, et al. The association between physician empathy and variation in imaging use. Acad Emerg Med 2016;23:895–904.
[10]. Maslach C. Burnout: The Cost of Caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1982.
[11]. Basu S, Yap C, Mason S. Examining the sources of occupational stress in an emergency department. Occup Med (Lond) 2016;66:737–42.
[12]. Ben-Itzhak S, Dvash J, Maor M, et al. Sense of meaning as a predictor of burnout in emergency physicians in Israel: a national survey. Clin Exp Emerg Med 2015;2:217–25.
[13]. Brazeau CM, Schroeder R, Rovi S, et al. Relationships between medical student burnout, empathy, and professionalism climate. Acad Med 2010;85:S33–6.
[14]. Abdo SA, El-Sallamy RM, El-Sherbiny AA, et al. Burnout among physicians and nursing staff working in the emergency hospital of Tanta University, Egypt. East Mediterr Health J 2016;21:906–15.
[15]. Lu DW, Dresden S, McCloskey C, et al. Impact of burnout on self-reported patient care among emergency physicians. West J Emerg Med 2015;16:996–1001.
[16]. Melnick ER, Powsner SM. Empathy in the time of burnout. Mayo Clin Proc 2016;91:1678–9.
[17]. Yuguero O, Ramon Marsal J, Esquerda M, et al. Association between low empathy and high burnout among primary care physicians and nurses in Lleida, Spain. Eur J Gen Pract 2017;23:4–10.
[18]. Alcorta-Garza A, González-Guerrero JF, Tavitas-Herrera SE, et al. Validity and reliability of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy in Mexican medial students [Validación de la escala de empatía médica de Jefferson en estudiantes de medicina mexicanos]. Salud Mental 2005;28:57–63.
[19]. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Nasca TJ, et al. The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: further psychometric data and differences by gender and specialty at item level. Acad Med 2002;77:S58–60.
[20]. Maslach C, Jackson SE. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS). Consulting Psychologists Press, MBI Manual. 3rd ed.. Palo Alto, CA:1996.
[21]. Seisdedos N, ed. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. Burning Syndrome by Care Labor Stress [Manual del Inventario Burnout de Maslach. Síndrome del quemado por estrés laboral asistencial]. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones SA; 1997.
[22]. Cañadas-De la Fuente GA, Albendín-García L, de la Fuente EI, et al. Burnout in nursing professionals performing overtime workdays in emergency and critical care departments [Síndrome de burnout en profesionales de enfermería que realizan jornada física complementaria en servicios de cuidados críticos y urgencias]. Rev Esp Salud Publica 2016;90:e1–9.
[23]. Yuguero O, Esquerda M, Marsal JR, et al. Association between sick leave prescribing practices and physician burnout and empathy. PLoS One 2015;10:e0133379.
[24]. Walocha E, Tomaszewski KA, Wilczek-Ruzyczka E, et al. Empathy and burnout among physicians of different specialities. Folia Med Cracov 2013;53:35–42.
[25]. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad [Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality]. Unidad de urgencias hospitalaria: estándares y recomendaciones [Hospital emergency ward: standards and recommendations].Updated 2010. Available at: http://www.msc.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/docs/UUH.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2016.
[26]. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med 2014;12:573–6.
[27]. Ruotsalainen JH, Verbeek JH, Mariné A, et al. Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015. CD002892.
[28]. Verweij H, Waumans RC, Smeijers D, et al. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for GPs: results of a controlled mixed methods pilot study in Dutch primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2016;66:e99–105.
[29]. Wallace JE, Lemaire JB, Ghali WA. Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. Lancet 2009;374:1714–21.
[30]. Hemmerdinger JM, Stoddart SD, Lilford RJ. A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine. BMC Med Educ 2007;7:24.
[31]. Olivares V, Gil-Monte P. Analysis of the main strengths and weaknesses of the “Maslach Burnout Inventory” (MBI) [Análisis de las Principales Fortalezas y Debilidades del “Maslach Burnout Inventory” (MBI)]. Cien Trab 2009;11:160–7.
Keywords:

bioethics; burnout; doctor–patient communication; emergency department; empathy; quality of care

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.