Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the value of global exchange around knowledge, skills and attitudes among senior healthcare professionals (SHPs). It has also revealed the need for strong peer-led networks and mentorship to tackle the high levels of burnout and ‘brain-drain’ already plaguing the National Health Service (NHS). We designed a survey to gauge the appetite for exchange programmes among SHPs.
Methods Data collection was carried out via an online qualitative survey generated by SurveyMonkey software and analysed by three independent authors.
Results 155 responses were collected of which 87.7% were pre-COVID-19 pandemic. 74.2% had ideas to improve healthcare but could not take it forward. 86.6% felt frustrated/down-heartened about work. 74.3% wanted more sharing of teaching resources. 74.2% expressed interest in sabbatical programmes.
Conclusion Our survey confirms the desire for more connection, collaboration and exchange among SHPs who are at high risk of burnout, silo-working and leaving the profession early. Sabbaticals have been used successfully in other industries, especially academia, for many years and show long-term investment and value from employers in their employees. Almost 75% of the SHPs in this survey were interested in this but logistics precluded easy access to them. HealthProMatch (HPM) is a platform where SHPs can connect, collaborate and arrange exchanges/sabbaticals with logistical ease. It focuses on bringing leadership, mentorship and quality improvement back home. HPM will pilot in the NHS within anaesthesia and hopes to increase job satisfaction and retention in this precious workforce group.
- medical leadership
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors The survey was created by AS. Analysis was performed by all three independent authors. SS submitted the article.
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.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
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.