Compassion Fatigue: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effects on Ancillary and Clinical Staff in an Adult Emergency Department
Skip to main content
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Compassion Fatigue: A Quantitative Analysis of the Effects on Ancillary and Clinical Staff in an Adult Emergency Department



Introduction: Emergency department (ED) staff are at a high risk for compassion fatigue (CF) due to a work environment that combines high patient acuity, violence, and other workplace stressors. This multi-faceted syndrome has wide-ranging impacts which, if left untreated, can lead to adverse mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders. However, the majority of studies examining CF look solely at clinicians; as a result, there is no information on the impact of CF across other roles that are involved in supporting patient care. We conducted this study to establish the prevalence of CF across both clinical and non-clinical roles in the adult ED setting.

Methods: For this single institution cross-sectional study, all full- and part-time ED staff members who worked at least 50% of their shifts in the ED or within the adult trauma service line were eligible to participate. Using the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL-5) scale, which measures CF via compassion satisfaction (CS), burnout (BO), and secondary traumatic stress (STS), we assessed for group differences between roles using non-parametric one-way ANOVA.

Results: A total of 152 participants (response rate = 38.0%) completed the survey. This included attending physicians (n = 15, 9.7%), resident/fellow physicians (n = 23, 15.1%), staff nurses (n = 54, 35.5%), emergency technicians (n = 21, 13.8%), supportive clinical staff (n = 28, 18.4%), and supportive ancillary staff (n = 11, 7.2%). Across all roles, the majority of respondents had average levels of BO (median = 25.0, IQR 20.0 – 29.0) and STS (median = 23.0, IQR 18.0 – 27.0) coupled with high levels of CS (median = 38.0, IQR 33.0 – 43.0). There was a difference in CS by role (p = .01), with nurses reporting lower CS than attending physicians. STS also differed by role (p = .01), with attending physicians reporting lower STS than both emergency technicians and nurses. Group differences were not seen in BO.

Conclusions: Rates of CF subcomponents were similar across all ED team members, including non-clinical staff. Programs to identify and mitigate CF should be implemented and extended to all roles within the ED.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View