A1752 Job demands, job resources and psychological work reactions in intensive and non-intensive care unit

Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Ground Floor (Cancun Center)
Sara Viotti, Psychology, University Of Turin, Turin, Italy
Daniela Converso, Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Imke Hindrichs, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma Del Estado De Morelos, Cuernavaca, Mexico
Introduction
Health worker’s population is espoused to high level of stress, and several studies highlight differences between intensive care units (ICUs; e.g.: Emergency Unit) and non-ICU (e.g.: Urology). Particular features of the job in ICU concern responsibilities for critically patients, highly advanced technology and need for quick decision (Tummer et al., 2002). Aims of this study are: (1) to examine differences between ICU’s and non-ICU’s workers job demands, social demands, job resources, social resources; (2) investigate which specific demands and resources have a role in determining psychological work reactions in ICU’s and non-ICU’s workers.

Methods
164 ICUs’ and non-ICU’s 208 workers filled a self-report questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS.

Results
1) MANOVA showed that depersonalization, job satisfaction, decision authority, autonomy, emotional, cognitive and physical demands, resources’ availability and supervisors’ supports were significantly higher in ICU than in non-ICU. Instead, there are no differences on emotional exhaustion, quality of communication, customer social stressors and colleagues’ support.
2) four Multiple Linear Regressions were carried out. First model show as predictors of burn out of ICU’s workers: quality of communication and cognitive demands. For non-ICU workers’ (M2): colleagues’ support. On the hand of job satisfaction, third model highlighted as significant factors in ICU: decision authority, resources’ availability, colleagues and supervisors’ support; whereas for non-ICU: colleagues’ support, decision authority and resources’ availability.

Discussion
Results are in accordance with main literature. Limits: the cross-sectional design of the study the interpretability of the observed association as a causal one.