Satisfaction level of phisicians working in a social health organization of Unified Health System In Brazil
Palavras-chave:Satisfaction, Work environment, Social Organization of Health, Doctor
Introduction: The evaluation of a work system is based on the ability to adapt work to the man and the man to the work. One of the aspects that interfere in the capacity of adaptation is the satisfaction in the work as the integration, the autonomy, the motivation, the involvement and the utilization of the physical and mental capacities.
Objective: To analyze the level of satisfaction of medical professionals regar ding their work environment in a Social Health Organization of Brazilian Unified Health System.
Methods: It is a cross-sectional, exploratory and descriptive study. For data collection, we used a questionnaire mailed through the Google Docs platform, containing 36 questions about indicators: material, personnel, quality and social.
Results: A total of 51 physicians participated in the study. The findings showed significant associations between their satisfaction of work environment and relationship with their work team, unit manager and performance recognition.
Conclusion: The satisfaction in the work environment of the medical professional in the Social Health Organization is associated with internal factors, as well as the need for their performance recognition by the management policy. The external factors studied, such as multiple job sites.
Guérin F, Kerguelen A, Laville A, Daniellou F, Duraffourg J. Compreender o trabalho para transformá-lo: a prática da ergonomia. São Paulo: Edgard Blücher; 2001.
Dejours C, Abdoucheli E, Jayet C. A carga psíquica do trabalho. In: Psicodinâmica do trabalho: contribuições da Escola Dejouriana à análise da relação prazer, so¬frimento e trabalho. 3. ed. São Paulo: Atlas; 1994. p. 21-32.
Fischer FM, Paraguay AIBB. A ergonomia como instrumento de pesquisa e melhoria das condições de vida e trabalho. In: Fischer FM, Gomes JR, Colaciopp S. Tópicos de saúde do trabalhador. São Paulo: Hucitec; 1989.
Locke EA. What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behav Hum Performance. 1969;4(4):309-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0
Robbins SP, Judge TA, Sobral F. Comportamento organizacional. 14. ed. São Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.
Wáng YXJ, Lǐ YT. AME survey-003 A1-part1: in current China, do you regret you joined the medical profession. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015;5(5):765-73. DOI: http?;dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.10.07
Chiavenato I. Introdução à teoria geral da administração. 7. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier; 2011.
Bertoncini JH, Pires DEP, Scherer MDA. Condições de trabalho e renormalizações no trabalho das enfermeiras na saúde da família. Trab Edu Saúde. 2011;9(supl.1):157-73. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1981-77462011000400008
Scherer MDA, Pires D, Schwartz Y. Trabalho coletivo: um desafio para a gestão em saúde. Rev Saúde Pública. 2009;43(4):721-5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102009000400020
Waddimba AC, Beckman HB, Mahoney TL, Burgess Jr JF. The moderating effect of job satisfaction on physicians motivation to adhere to financially incentivized clinical practice guidelines. Med Care Res Rev. 2016;74(2):148-77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558716628354
Barbosa NB, Elias PEM. As organizações sociais de saúde como forma de gestão público/privado. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2010;15(5):2483-95. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232010000500023
Petras J. Ensaios contra a ordem. São Paulo: Scritta; 1995.
Ibañez N, Bittar OJNV, Sá ENC, Yamamoto EK, Almeida MF, Castro CGJ. Organizações sociais de saúde: o modelo do Estado de São Paulo. Ciênc Saúde Coletiva. 2001; 6(2):391-404. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232001000200009
Campos CVA, Malik AM. Satisfação no trabalho e rotatividade dos médicos do Programa de Saúde da Família. Rev Adm Pública. 2008;42(2):347-68. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122008000200007
Ritsema TS, Roberts KA. Job satisfaction among British physician associates. Clin Med (Lond). 2016;16(6):511-3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.16-6-511
Ribeiro RB, Assunção AA, Araújo TM. Factors associated with job satisfaction among public-sector physicians in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):787-804. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/HS.44.4.f
Assunção AA, Machado CJ, Prais HA, Araújo TM. Working conditions and common mental disorders in physicians in Brazil. Occup Med (Lond). 2013;63(3):234-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqt009
Collins S. Statutory social workers: stress, job satisfaction, coping, social support and individual differences. Br J Social Work. 2007;38(6):1173-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcm047.
Magnago C, Pierantoni C. Cenário de contratações para a Estratégia Saúde da Família no município do Rio de Janeiro: análise dos anos 2000. J Manag Prim Health Care. 2013;4(2):116-25.
Rimmer A. A third of GPs are considering retirement, BMA survey finds. BMJ. 2015;350:h2037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2037
Wada K1, Arimatsu M, Yoshikawa T, Oda S, Taniguchi H, Higashi T, et al. Factors on working conditions and prolonged fatigue among physicians in Japan. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008;82(1):59-66. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-008-0307-3
Pierantoni CR, Vianna CMM, França T, Magnago C, Rodrigues MPS. Rotatividade da força de trabalho médica no Brasil. Saúde Debate. 2015;39(106):637-47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-110420151060003006
Ishara S, Bandeira M, Zuardi AW. Public psychiatric services: job satisfaction evaluation. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2008;30(1):38-41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462006005000064
Pantenburg B, Kitze k, Luppa M, König H, Riedel-Heller SG. Job satisfaction of foreign-national physicians working in patient care: a cross-sectional study in Saxony, Germany. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2016;11(1):41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12995-016-0129-2
Lu Y, Hu XM, Huang XL, Zhuang XD, Guo P, Feng LF, et al. Job satisfaction and associated factors among healthcare staff: a crosso-sectional study in Guangdong Province, China. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e011388. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011388
Nabialczyk-Chalupowski M. Tracking the origins, defining and quantifying quality of care: Can we reach a consensus? J Hum Growth Dev. 2016;26(2):133-138. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.119237
Bezerra IMP, Sorpreso ICE. Concepts and movements in health promotion to guide educational practices. J Hum Growth Dev. 2016;26(1):11-20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.113709
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL PUBLISHERS
Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:
- Follow this code, and encourage the editors they work with to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Edi- tors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf)
- Ensure the editors and journals they work with are aware of what their membership of COPE provides and en- tails
- Provide reasonable practical support to editors so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf_)
- Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
- Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
- Protect intellectual property and copyright
- Foster editorial independence
Publishers should work with journal editors to:
- Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:
– Editorial independence
– Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research
– Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards
– Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor
– Appeals and complaints
- Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
- Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
- Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
- Maintain the integrity of the academic record
- Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
- Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
- Publish content on a timely basis