You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Easy come, easy go? Time to change our approach to staff retention in emergency medicine
  1. Sunil Dasan
  1. Emergency Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sunil Dasan, Emergency Department, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; sunil.dasan{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211546

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Why do Doctors leave their posts in emergency medicine? And what makes them stay?

    These are perennial questions for health service leaders concerned about staff and their workforce. However, what do we really know about the factors that influence doctors decisions to stay or go in the health service in general and specifically in emergency care?

    From a health service perspective we know that if staff are required to perform work under adverse conditions on a permanent basis they will inevitably encounter health and performance problems with musculoskeletal disorders and mental health issues (in particular psychological stress) representing the headline causes of absence and early withdrawal from work. We also know that by designing work to fit staff capability and capacity, this will likely increase their disposition to extend their working lives.1

    As a means to understand individual capability and capacity, the processes of annual review and appraisal provide …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Ellen J Weber

    • Contributors SD wrote the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles