Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Q fever—the superstition of avoiding the word “quiet” as a coping mechanism: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Q fever—the superstition of avoiding the word “quiet” as a coping mechanism: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Q fever—the superstition of avoiding the word “quiet” as a coping mechanism: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Q fever—the superstition of avoiding the word “quiet” as a coping mechanism: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
2019
Overview
AbstractObjectiveTo determine the validity of the superstition that utterance of the word “quiet” in a clinical setting increases workload.DesignProspective randomised controlled non-inferiority study.SettingMicrobiology department of a large teaching hospital in Lancashire, UK.ParticipantsTwo members of the medical microbiology team carried out the duty work on any given week day and an on-call team member on any weekend day. 29 days were assigned in which staff were to say “Today will be a quiet day” and 32 days were assigned in which staff were to refrain from saying the word “quiet” in any context.InterventionsEach day was randomly allocated to either saying “Today will be a quiet day” (intervention group) or refraining from saying the word “quiet” (control group) in any context.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was mean overall workload: a composite of number of clinically related telephone calls, clinically significant results, or validated results processed by the duty medical microbiology team during a 24 hour period referred to collectively as “clinical episodes.” A difference of 30 clinical episodes was considered as the margin of non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome.ResultsWorkload was measured each day over a 61 day period (1 May to 30 June 2019). A mean 139.0 clinical episodes occurred on control days compared with 144.9 on days when the experimental intervention was uttered, a difference of 5.9 (95% confidence interval−12.9 to 24.7). The upper bound was less than the specified margin of 30, providing evidence for non-inferiority. No evidence of a difference in workload was found between interventions with any of the four components, whether considering unadjusted or adjusted analyses, or looking at the subgroups of week days or weekends.ConclusionsThe study findings refute the long held superstition that utterance of the word “quiet” impacts on clinical workload, and therefore it should not be avoided. In the era of considerable staff shortages and increased work related stress, doctors should look to other methods to increase resilience and protect their wellbeing and mental health.Trial registrationLancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s research department SE-259.
Publisher
British Medical Journal Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
Subject
/ Adult
/ Female
/ Health Personnel - psychology
/ Holidays & special occasions
/ Humans
/ Language
/ Male
/ Patients
/ Q fever
