# Uncovering gaps in workforce well-being: a national look at survey practice in Dutch university medical centres – an exploratory quantitative study

## TL;DR

This study examines employee surveys in Dutch university medical centers and finds a lack of consistency, limiting their effectiveness in monitoring workforce well-being.

## Contribution

The study provides a national analysis of survey practices in UMCs, highlighting gaps in cohesion and effectiveness.

## Key findings

- Significant variation in survey items, response options, and timing across UMCs was observed.
- Median scores for certain job control items were low, indicating potential areas for improvement.
- Surveys are not effectively used to monitor work experience or well-being at a national level.

## Abstract

Maintaining a healthy workforce is crucial for safe, high-quality care. To enhance well-being and engagement in Dutch university medical centres (UMCs), an overview of staff well-being and job perceptions is needed first. Surveys are widely used to improve working conditions, but varying questionnaires hinder a comprehensive view. This study aimed to evaluate the content of employee surveys currently used in UMCs in the Netherlands from a well-being perspective and to analyse the survey results at a national level.

All seven UMCs were approached to participate in the study and share employee survey data. The primary outcome of interest is work experience; a secondary analysis was conducted. Items were categorised following the Job Demands-Resources model. Descriptive statistics were presented as percentages, means and medians with IQRs.

Two UMCs participated and 31 862 completed surveys were included. Variation in survey items (eg, 15–18 subcategories, 21–33 question items), response options (eg, 1–5, 1–10), frequency (1–3 times per year) and timing were found. Scores on the following outcomes are presented: work overload, coworker support, job control, organisational justice, participation in decision-making, performance feedback, possibilities for learning and development, recognition, task variety, team atmosphere, team effectiveness, trust in leadership, other job resources, connecting/inspiring leadership, self-efficacy, goal-directiveness, boredom, burnout, job satisfaction, work engagement, other employee well-being, commitment organisation/team and work ability. Results should be interpreted with caution, and solely found for hospital A, for certain job control items, median scores of 2 or 3 were observed, whereas the majority of other question items revealed a median score of 4.

There is a significant lack of cohesion across employee surveys. As it stands, employee surveys in Dutch UMCs are not effective tools for monitoring the work experience or well-being of the healthcare workforce. While these surveys may support management decisions, this support is not reflected in interventions related to work and the work environment.