Search results

While prevalence and value of nonclinical hospital workers, like quality or education professionals, increase, their work engagement is understudied. Work engagement of nonclinical and clinical hospital workers is critical considering the pressure of major challenges in healthcare. The pandemic was a natural experiment for this.

We conducted an observational survey study among all nonclinical and clinical hospital workers of the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands. In an employee satisfaction survey, we measured work engagement under acute pressure (just after the first COVID-19 wave in July 2020) and chronic pressure (within the second COVID-19 wave in November 2020) and to what extent psychological demands and co-worker support were related to work engagement.

For all hospital staff, “average” levels of work engagement were found under acute (response rate 53.9%, mean 3.94(0.81)) and chronic pressure (response rate 34.0%, mean 3.88(0.95)). Under acute pressure, nonclinical hospital workers scored lower on the subcategory dedication than clinical workers (mean 4.28(1.05) vs mean 4.45(0.99), p < 0.001). Under chronic pressure, no differences were found. For both nonclinical and clinical hospital workers, co-worker support was positively related to overall work engagement (beta 0.309 and 0.372). Psychological demands were positively related to work engagement for nonclinical hospital workers (beta 0.130), whereas in clinical hospital workers, psychological demands were negatively related to vigor (beta −0.082).

Hospitals face times of pressure. Fostering co-worker support under pressure may be vital for hospital management.

Work engagement of nonclinical hospital workers is understudied.

The purpose of the paper is to provide insight in the critical factors involved in creating an optimum in developing technology for educational innovation, for each stakeholder, in any relevant context and at any time.

From literature review, four diagrams were constructed to contain the critical factors involved in creating an optimum in developing technology for educational innovation in different “views”. These four diagrams, as a theoretical instrument for analysis, was then reshaped into a practical instrument for analysis, in the form of an online questionnaire, and tested with five different projects in three different schools.

The critical factors can be ordered by stakeholder, by context and by time. Each ordering provides a different view on the development process. Using the different views for different cases, more insight is provided and more guidelines for improvement can be found.

The practical instrument needs improvement to be more easy to use for teachers and students. Future research is also needed to test both the practical instrument as well as the theoretical instrument further, to be able to refine them where needed.

A very insightful instrument to analyse the success factors of developing of technology for educational innovation for the different stakeholders, in different context and at different times in the process.

This paper combines an overview of the critical success factors of developing of technology for educational innovation with different views of these factors, to provide more insight in the process.