Compassion fatigue in critical care nurses and its impact on nurse-sensitive indicators in Saudi Arabian hospitals

Abstract

<p><i>Aim:</i> To examine the previously untested relationship between the level of compassion fatigue (CF) in critical care nurses and the rates of three nurse-sensitive indicators in four critical care units in hospitals in Saudi Arabia.<br/><i>Background:</i> CF can manifest in nurses who provide direct, intimate care to patients with different levels of illness including nurses working in specialty areas such as critical care where they care for patients experiencing challenging illnesses. Pressure injuries, patient falls, and medication errors are key nurse-sensitive indicators that identify critical care nurses as the primary causal agent. These indicators also correlate with burnout and poor multidisciplinary team communication, both factors that govern CF.</br><br/><i>Methods:</i> A multisite survey was conducted to collate and examine the number of reported pressure injuries, falls, and medication errors over 3 months at four hospitals in two Saudi Arabian cities during 2018 to determine the relationship between the occurrence of these nurse-sensitive indicators and the level of CF in critical care (intensive care unit [ICU]) nurses. A survey of 516 critical care nurses was undertaken; analysis was performed using the Professional Quality of Life Scale, version 5 (ProQol-5), and results were further analysed using Pearson's correlations and three-way analysis of variance.</br><br/><i>Results:</i> The results of the regression analysis indicated resilience as a predictor explained 66% of the compassion satisfaction (CS) variance (B = 0.318, R² = 0.436, F_{(2, 12.495)} = 123.013, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and 26% of the burnout (BO) variance (B = 0.152, R² = 0.067, F_{(2, 11.500)} = 3.279, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In addition, the level of resilience as a predictor explained 15.4% of the secondary traumatic stress (STS) variance (B = 0.063, R² = 0.024, F_{(2, 7.758)} = 2.785, <i>p</i> = 0.006). Conversely, coping strategies did not predict CS, BO, or STS (<i>p</i> > 0.05) at a statistically significant level. The concurrent measure of CF, BO, and STS found that almost 20% of the critical care nurse participants reported having very low CS, indicating increased potential for the development of CF. In addition, male nurses reported experiencing higher levels of stress and BO than female nurses. This study also found that neither the number of patients being treated nor the number of beds in the care setting affected the rate of the nominated nurse-sensitive indicators. The results for rates of pressure injuries did vary among the hospitals, with the worst performing hospital reporting pressure injury rates of one in every 40 patients and the better performing hospital reporting no cases of pressure injuries after treating more than 100 patients. Patient falls and medication errors were rare occurrences and did not vary between hospitals.</br><br/><i>Significance:</i> This study indicates that there is a possible issue contributing to the differential level of care between hospitals. The mode and length of time nurses spend on handover may also reflect communication issues that increase both the rate of nurse-sensitive indicators and the level of CF reported by nurses. Therefore, the implications of this study, in terms of improving nursing practice, occurs in handover to ensure that information on aspects of nonpatient critical care are fully covered, such as time of patient turning to avoid pressure injuries.</br></p>