Burnout Syndrome in Nursing Trauma Team

Measuring Compassion Fatigue and Burnout Syndrome

Abstract

Compassion fatigue and burnout syndrome negatively impact trauma team members. The study aimed to determine if CF and BOS impact trauma team members and how they cope with professional stress. The study comprised 12 practitioners who completed surveys and participated in a focus group session where they shared their perceptions regarding stress triggers and coping strategies. The study's findings indicate that more than half the study participants are at risk for CF and BOS. The authors' presented strategies for developing a culturally sensitive program for addressing CF and BOS.

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to acquire information from a trauma team regarding compassion fatigue (CF) and burnout syndrome (BOS) using qualitative methods. Berg et al. (2016) wanted to evaluate CF and BOS in a trauma team and have the team members provide their perspectives on stressors and coping strategies. Patient care is affected by CF and BOS, and we must understand the impact it has on a trauma team so we can develop strategies to support and assist those affected. According to Berg et al. (2016), no focus is placed on trauma teams as a unit, leading to their desire to investigate the impact of CF and BOS in a trauma team.

Methods

The methodology used in the study was a focus group, with Berg et al. (2016) receiving approval from the relevant institutional review boards. Berg et al. (2016) used qualitative tools for the study. The assessment tools used were the Holmes-Rahe Life and Stress Inventory, the Professional Quality of Life Scales (ProQOL), and a demographic survey. The Holmes-Rahe Life and Stress Inventory is a 43-item scale that measures how stressful life events contribute to illness (Berg et al., 2016). The ProQOL measures compassion satisfaction and CF. The demographic survey covered sex, age, religion, ethnicity, and professional expertise. Berg et al. (2016) had a focus group script comprising questions about compassion satisfaction, CF, secondary traumatic stress (STS), and self-care.

Study Design

The study was a qualitative study that employed a focus group methodology. The focus group lasted 1.5 hours, and a trained facilitator led it (Berg et al., 2016). Together with the study participants, two trained researchers took notes during the focus group session. The session was audiotaped and transcribed. Due to the focus group session's sensitive nature, a chaplain was available to debrief the study participants. Two research team members independently reviewed the notes and transcripts to identify themes (Berg et al., 2016).

Sample/Sampling Methods

All the focus group participants were over 18 years of age and employed as members of a trauma team in a Midwestern Level I trauma center. Berg et al. (2016) recruited participants through invitation during several trauma operation meetings. Informed consent was obtained before the session started, and participation was voluntary. The study had 12 participants, largely comprised of White female nurses older than 40 years (Berg et al., 2016). Of the 12 participants, only 2 were Hispanic/Latino, and 4 were male.

Instruments/Measurements/Tools

The study used two main tools: the Holmes-Rahe Life and Stress inventory and the Professional Quality of Life Scales. The Holmes-Rahe Life and Stress Inventory was used to measure how stressful life events contribute to illness. Scores for the tool fall into four categories: no significant stress = 0-149, mild stress = 150-199, moderate stress = 200-299, and major stress = 300-600 (Berg et al., 2016). The ProQOL measures compassion satisfaction and CF. Compassion fatigue is further split into two scales: STS and burnout. The ProQOL has 30 statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale from never to very often.

Data Analysis

The themes for the study were identified by independently reviewing the notes and transcripts from the focus group session. A mutual consensus was used to address any disparities between the two research team members who reviewed the notes and transcripts (Berg et al., 2016). All study data were summarized using standard deviation for interval data and percentages for categorical data. The transcription analysis uncovered four themes: positive aspects of the job, stress symptoms, stress triggers, and coping with stress.

Major Findings

No significant stress and mild stress were reported using the Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory. Mild stress was reported by 41.7% of participants, while 58.3% reported no significant stress. The ProQOL indicated that 33.3% of the participants scored a combination of low compassion and high burnout. Moderate burnout was scored by 25% of the participants. When Berg et al. (2016) interpreted the scores of the ProQOL, they discovered that 42% of the participants were at risk, with 16.7% scoring at high risk due to burnout and 25% being overwhelmed, distressed, or useless in their job. The focus group uncovered four themes related to positive aspects of the job, stress symptoms, stress triggers, and coping with stress. Had Berg et al. (2016) relied on the Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory only, they would have reported that trauma team members are adept at managing work stressors. However, the ProQOL demonstrates otherwise, where most participants (75%) scored moderate or high range for STS, and 58.3% scored moderate or high range for burnout (Berg et al., 2016).