Burnout, resilience and work engagement among Dutch intensivists in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: A nationwide survey
Purpose: The COVID-19 crisis put a strain on intensive care resources everywhere in the world increasing the risk of burnout. Previously, the prevalence of burnout among Dutch intensivists was found to be low. Engagement and resilience among intensivists have not previously been studied quantitatively, however, both are related to burnout and provide a possible way to mitigate burnout. Our objective was to study burnout and its association with work engagement and resilience among Dutch intensivists in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to all Dutch intensivists. The questionnaire consisted of questions on personal and work-related characteristics and validated questionnaires: the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and the Resilience Evaluation Scale. Results: The response rate was 27.2% with 162 evaluable responses. Thirteen respondents (8.0%) were classified as having burnout, 63 (38.9%) respondents were reporting high work engagement. Burnout was found to be negatively associated with both work engagement and resilience. Conclusion: In the aftermath of the 2020 COVID-19 crisis, we found a raised prevalence of burnout among intensivists, however this is still low in international comparisons. Intensivists with burnout scored low on resilience and low on work engagement.
|Burnout syndrome, COVID-19, Intensive care, Resilience, Work engagement|
|Journal of Critical Care: improving patient care by integrating critical care systems knowledge into practice behavior|
|Organisation||Department of Intensive Care|
Meynaar, I.A, Ottens, T. (Thomas), Zegers, M, van Mol, M.M.C, & Van Der Horst, I.C.C. (2021). Burnout, resilience and work engagement among Dutch intensivists in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: A nationwide survey. Journal of Critical Care: improving patient care by integrating critical care systems knowledge into practice behavior, 62, 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.11.010