Introduction

The healthcare sector is undergoing significant organizational transformation and facing substantial challenges, particularly those related to workforce management, making it essential to develop sustainable and resilient healthcare systems that can meet the needs of current and future generations1. These changes are driven in part by demographic shifts, including an aging population and an increasing prevalence of patients with multiple comorbidities, which are increasing the demand for healthcare services and overall volume of care, thereby exerting considerable pressure on the healthcare workforce2,3 This situation is further exacerbated by resources limitations, including workforce shortages, financial constraints, and infrastructural deficits. At the same time, governments face increasing pressure to reduce healthcare costs and enhance efficiency, while ensuring that the quality of services delivered to citizens remains uncompromised4.

Many European countries are experiencing significant gaps in the supply and skill levels of their healthcare workforce, driven by an aging workforce, insufficient training opportunities, and migration of healthcare professionals, all of which affect overall hospital productivity5,6. Additionally, a growing number of newly qualified professionals engage in job hopping - frequently changing roles in search of better working conditions - which undermines long-term retention within healthcare organizations7. As a result, healthcare staff are increasingly overburdened, which reduces the time available for meaningful patient interaction—an element closely linked to professional motivation, care quality, and patient outcomes8. Workforce challenges are likely to escalate due to anticipated retirement rates and an overall decline in the availability of healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, and technical staff. By 2030, Europe is projected to face a shortage of 4.1 million healthcare workers, comprising 0.6 million physicians, 2.3 million nurses, and 1.3 million other healthcare professionals6,7,8,9.

Staff shortages, together with other resource limitations, organizational inefficiencies, and insufficient support structures, can significantly compromise the well-being of healthcare professionals10,11. Additional factors further erode organizational well-being and intensify pressure on an already strained workforce. These include not only financial constraints, but also interpersonal tensions and the emotional demands associated with patient care12,13. Healthcare professionals are frequently exposed to distressing situations, such as patient suffering, high-stakes decision-making, and emotionally charged interactions with families or colleagues, which may lead to elevated stress levels and compassion fatigue14,15. Additionally, exposure to adverse events or near misses that place patients at risk can intensify psychological distress and contribute to long-term burnout16,17,18. Recent evidence shows burnout affects up to 56% of nurses, with higher rates in settings of overcrowding and understaffing19. Staff burnout has also been associated with higher incidence of medical errors, lower levels of patient satisfaction, and reduced overall quality of care20,21,22,23.

In addition to these psychosocial and emotional stressors, the physical safety of healthcare workers remains a critical concern. Healthcare staff are exposed to a broad spectrum of occupational hazards, including ergonomic risks, exposure to bloodborne pathogens, radiation, and hazardous drugs. According to data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)24, these safety threats not only endanger healthcare workers’ health but also compromise the quality of care delivered.

While technological advancements are often introduced to standardize processes, improve efficiency, and reduce medical errors, their improper implementation—due to lack of oversight, insufficient training, or misalignment with professionals’ needs—may generate unintended consequences such as frustration and cognitive overload, ultimately affecting both individual and team performance, reinforcing a vicious cycle of declining safety, reduced care quality, and staff attrition.

Despite a growing body of literature on healthcare worker well-being, significant knowledge gaps remain. Previous studies often rely on secondary data or theoretical models, frequently overlooking direct insights from healthcare professionals themselves25. While the acceptability and usability of new technologies have been widely explored through market research and feasibility studies, their potential influence on organizational well-being - particularly regarding professional engagement, staff retention, and perceived psychological and physical safety - remains underexplored and poorly understood in empirical settings. This is particularly relevant given the increasing emphasis on technology as a lever for improving workplace satisfaction and fostering safer, more sustainable care environments. Moreover, comparisons across different hospital departments (such as hospital pharmacies, diagnostic laboratories, and wards) are rarely addressed, despite the heterogeneous nature of work environments26. In this context, healthcare professionals’ perspectives can provide critical real-world insights into how workplace conditions and technological change interact27.

This study explores the organizational well-being of healthcare professionals, with a focus on factors that shape their daily experience.

The following research questions (RQ) were formulated:

  • RQ1: What is the perceived level of psychological and physical safety, professional engagement, and mental well-being among healthcare professionals working in different hospital settings (i.e., wards, diagnostic laboratories, and hospital pharmacies)?

  • RQ2: How does technology adoption influence healthcare professionals’ quality of life, and in what ways does it foster a culture of safety and well-being within healthcare organizations?

By addressing these research questions, this study aims to provide real-world insights and a deeper understanding on key factors influencing healthcare professionals’ well-being, the interplay between psychological and physical safety, and the impact of technology adoption on workplace dynamics across different hospital settings. These insights could inform future strategic initiatives aimed at enhancing both psychological and physical safety in the workplace, thereby improving healthcare professionals’ quality of life.

The proposed approach could support not only workforce efficiency and retention, but also the appropriateness of care delivery. By ensuring safer and more sustainable working conditions, professionals are enabled to provide high-quality care.

Materials and methods

Study design

This study was designed as qualitative research, capturing healthcare professionals’ perceptions through a structured online survey. To ensure transparency and rigor in reporting, the STROBE checklist was applied, as it offers a standardized framework for survey-based research in healthcare. While responses were numerically summarized, the study’s primary aim was exploratory and interpretive, seeking to understand healthcare professionals’ views on occupational well-being and quality of life.

Methodologically, the structured online survey was considered the most appropriate tool for achieving the outlined objectives, as it enabled structured collection of insights on organizational well-being while ensuring broad geographic coverage and accessibility28. In addition, the use of this survey as a pragmatic tool for broad data collection does not alter the qualitative orientation of the study, which remains focused on understanding meanings, experiences, and perceptions within hospital settings29,30. Furthermore, the anonymity provided by online data collection minimizes response bias, encouraging participants to express their views more openly, particularly on sensitive topics such as workplace stress and well-being.

Ethical approval for the study was obtained by the Carlo Cattaneo – LIUC University Ethical Committee (Protocol Number R15-23), in accordance with the principles of the University Community’s Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Code, and with the provisions of the regulations in force, also adequately responding to the principles of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR), ensuring the anonymity of all respondents and the proper handling of their data.

Survey development

The survey included items from validated, evidence-based scales, aimed at assessing healthcare professionals’ perceptions of occupational well-being, psychological and physical safety, and professional engagement. Based on literature, the questionnaire incorporated standardized instruments (Table 1), which were either used in their original format or adapted to the healthcare context and the specific focus of the study. Where necessary, additional items were incorporated to ensure alignment with the study’s research questions and to capture context-specific nuances. These standardized scales, yielding numerical responses, were primarily used to capture participants’ subjective perceptions and experiences, reinforcing the qualitative focus of the study.

To ensure broad reach, the questionnaire was translated and made available in five languages (Italian, English, French, German, and Spanish). The survey was translated using a forward-backward translation process conducted by bilingual experts. Any translation discrepancies were discussed and resolved to ensure conceptual and linguistic cons, thereby maintaining consistency across all language versions of the questionnaire.

A pilot version of the survey was tested with a small sample of healthcare professionals in each language group (including 40 respondents, with 8 participants per language), with the aim of evaluating content validity, item clarity, and overall reliability. Feedback collected during the pilot phase led to minor revisions (in terms of clarification of wording, reordering of items to improve flow, and adjustment of some context-specific examples) to enhance comprehensibility and ensure linguistic and cultural appropriateness. These revisions were applied consistently across all five language versions to ensure conceptual and linguistic equivalence.

The final version of the questionnaire was administered via LimeSurvey, a secure online survey platform. The survey was distributed through targeted mailing lists and professional networks across several countries (Italy, France, Spain, United Kingdom, Germany) and regions (Benelux, Nordics, and the Middle East). Participants could complete the survey on any device, with an estimated completion time of approximately 20 min (the average response time was observed to fall within a 18–25-minute range). Response collection occurred between February and August 2024.

Survey and measures

The survey consisted of seven sections and a total of 41 items, including measures related to participants’ demographic and professional profiles. While structured scales were used to facilitate response collection, the analysis focused on the interpretation of perceptions rather than purely quantitative inference, consistent with an exploratory qualitative design.

The first section of the questionnaire was composed of introductory questions aimed at profiling the survey responders. Besides information concerning the country of reference, age and the gender, as well as working seniority, the respondents declared their working department (pharmacy, diagnostic laboratory, or ward) and their professional role (e.g., head of department, medical manager, technician, nurses, etc.).

The remaining sections of the questionnaire were designed to gather healthcare professionals’ perceptions on several dimensions, derived from literature evidence, as depicted in Table 1.

Table 1 The main dimensions investigated with the qualitative questionnaire.
Full size table

Survey distribution

The target audience for this study comprised a broad range of healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and laboratory and pharmacy technicians, working in hospital wards, diagnostic laboratories, or hospital pharmacies.

These three departments were selected because they represent distinct functional areas within hospital systems, each with unique workflows, professional roles, and levels of exposure to clinical and organizational risk. Collectively, they represent the primary operational domains in which healthcare professionals perform their activities, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of technology adoption perceptions, across different hospital settings. Based on the above, inclusion criteria were active healthcare professionals in the specified departments, while exclusion criteria included students and professionals not working in the selected departments.

To identify potential respondents and ensure broad professional coverage, a structured internet search was conducted to map the main scientific and professional associations representing these healthcare roles at the European level. A total of 126 associations were identified and contacted with formal invitations to disseminate the survey among their members (who had the possibility to share the survey link with colleagues working in similar departments who met the inclusion criteria), reaching a total of 1,065 individuals.

A convenience sampling strategy was employed, complemented by a snowballing approach to expand the network of contacts through these associations. This method ensured access to a diverse and relevant population across multiple departments and professional roles, appropriate for exploratory analysis in line with the qualitative study design37,38. Assuming a response rate of 30% among the 1,065 professionals contacted, as supported by the literature39 on qualitative studies of this type, a sample size of 367 participants was calculated using a 95% confidence interval with the open-access software OpenEpi.

Data analysis

The collected survey responses were first exported from Lime Survey into MS Excel and then imported into IBM SPSS (27.0 version) for statistical analysis, with data analyzed in an aggregated manner.

At first, all survey measures used validated scales assessing psychological safety, professional engagement, mental well-being, physical safety, quality of life, and technology impact. To ensure their reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each scale prior to analysis. All scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α > 0.7), confirming that they reliably measured the intended constructs and could be interpreted confidently in this context.

A descriptive statistical assessment was initially performed to summarize the key characteristics of the dataset. Measures such as means, minimum and maximum values, and frequency distributions were computed to provide an overview of the general trends in healthcare professionals’ perceptions.

To explore potential variations across hospital settings, the data were stratified by department (pharmacy, diagnostic laboratories, and hospital wards). Inferential statistical analyses were then applied to investigate significant differences among subgroups, using a significance threshold set at p ≤ 0.05. Specifically, independent-samples t-tests were conducted when comparing two groups, and one-way ANOVA was used for comparisons among three or more groups. This allowed for the identification of statistically meaningful patterns, providing deeper insights into the factors influencing healthcare professionals’ well-being across different healthcare settings. Assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were verified prior to applying parametric tests.

Results

Respondent characteristics

Out of 1,065 individuals reached, 449 responses were collected and analyzed (overall response rate, 42%). Most respondents were from Italy (44%), followed by the GSA region—Germany, Switzerland, and Austria (18%), and Spain (17%). As shown in Fig. 1, most respondents worked in wards (67%). However, in some countries, such as France and Belgium and the Netherlands, most professionals were affiliated with the pharmaceutical department (55% and 94%, respectively).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The sample under assessment by Country and working departments.

Full size image

The respondents’ characteristics are presented in Supplementary Table 1. The sample predominantly consisted of female participants (71%), with the largest age group being 51 to 60 years old (34%). A majority (79%) worked in public hospitals, with the only exception being professionals from Belgium and the Netherlands. On average, respondents had a total work experience of 22.86 years, of which 15.20 years had been spent in their current organization.

Healthcare professionals’ psychological safety and professional engagement

Table 2 depicts that 61% of study participants reported feeling psychologically safe within their organization, while 16% reported low levels of psychological safety, and 23% indicated a neutral stance, neither feeling safe nor unsafe. Specifically, the mean scores, on a 5-item evaluation scale, were 3.53 for individual safety, 3.51 for team respect, and 3.42 for team learning. Regarding professional engagement, 55% of respondents reported feeling professionally engaged in their work, whereas 15% reported low levels of engagement, and 30% expressed a neutral stance. No statistically significant difference emerged regarding perceived psychological safety and perceived professional engagement based on the survey participant’s working department (Supplementary Table 2).

A statistically significant difference in psychological safety perception was observed across countries (p – value = 0.001). Specifically, respondents from the Middle East & Africa reported higher perceptions of psychological safety (mean score = 3.91, 77% of respondents scoring 4 or 5), whereas professionals in Italy tended to report lower levels (mean score = 3.30, with only 49% scoring 4 or 5). A similar trend was observed for professional engagement, with respondents from Belgium and the Netherlands reporting lower levels of engagement (mean score = 3.28, with only 46% of study participants scoring 4 or 5), and those from the Middle East & Africa showing higher perceptions of engagement (mean score = 3.81, with 65% of respondents scoring 4 or 5).

Table 2 Perceived psychological safety and professional engagement.
Full size table

Healthcare professionals’ mental well-being

The findings on healthcare professionals’ mental well-being (Table 3) indicated that 27% of the sample experiences high levels of fatigue and exhaustion, as reflected in the proportion of professionals who report often or always experiencing work-related stress. The mean perceived mental well-being score was 2.90 (on a scale from 1 = Never to 5 = Always). Specifically, 40% of study participants reported often or always feeling exhausted, 25% experienced mental distance, 23% reported cognitive impairment, and 17% felt emotionally impaired at work. Respondents working in a pharmacy (10%) were more likely to report often or always feeling mentally distant compared to those working in a diagnostic laboratory (3%) –p-value = 0.033.

Table 3 Perceived mental well-being.
Full size table

When comparing mental well-being across countries, a statistically significant difference emerged (p = 0.001). Healthcare professionals in the GSA region exhibited higher perceptions of mental well-being, with a mean score of 2.53 and 48% of respondents answering “never” or “rarely” across the different dimensions. Conversely, respondents from Spain had the lowest level of mental well-being, with a mean score of 3.11, and the highest proportion of professionals (35%) experiencing low levels of mental well-being.

Approximately half of the respondents (46%) stated that their healthcare organization provides support for managing mental well-being and work-related stress. Among the available resources, face-to-face counseling was most often reported (56%), followed by on-site or online peer-support networks (12%). Healthcare professionals who reported having access to such organizational support were less likely to experience fatigue and exhaustion, as reflected in their overall mental well-being score (2.78) compared to those who did not receive support (3.01, p < 0.001).

Healthcare professionals’ perceptions on the physical safety

Overall, 70% of respondents perceived their working environment as generally safe. Higher perceptions of workplace safety were reported in the Nordic countries, suggesting a well-established occupational safety culture. In contrast, respondents from the Middle East & Africa perceived their workplace as offering limited safety, with only 58% expressing a positive safety perception (p = 0.001).

As illustrated in Fig. 2, up to 15% of respondents reported feeling unsafe due to specific occupational hazards, including exposure to occupational infections (4%), hazardous chemicals (9%), environmental health hazards (11%), injuries from patient handling (such as musculoskeletal strain or injury due to the physical activities performed by healthcare workers to assist, lift, transfer, reposition, or support patients during care delivery) (5%), and aggression from patients (15%) or colleagues (12%).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Healthcare professionals’ perceptions on physical safety.

Full size image

Examining differences across hospital settings, study participants working in wards, compared to those working in pharmacies or diagnostic laboratories, were more likely to report feeling unsafe due to potential exposure to radiation (average value: 3.88 versus 4.04 versus 4.14, p-value = 0.036) and colleagues’ aggression (average value: 3.02 versus 3.44 versus 3.46, p-value = 0.001) (Supplementary Table 3).

Respondents generally agreed that their organization actively addresses workplace safety hazards (reporting an average score of 3.37), conducted regular and thorough safety inspections (reporting an average score of 3.25), provides all necessary safety equipment (reporting an average score of 3.59), and sufficiently invests in safety training (reporting an average score of 3.18). Survey participants working in a diagnostic laboratory (8%) were less likely to report that they have all the necessary equipment to perform their job safely compared to those working in a pharmacy (13%) or in the ward (38%). In general, professionals agreed that management could improve by listening to and considering workers’ ideas for enhancing safety (reporting an average score of 2.92).

Healthcare professionals’ quality of life (PRO-QoL)

The overall sample reported a generally high level of satisfaction and positive experiences in carrying out their professional activities, with 58% of respondents perceiving a high level of Professional Quality of Life (PRO-QoL) (Table 4). Additionally, respondents largely disagreed with feeling depressed (mean score: 2.73) and did not feel trapped in their job (mean score: 2.70). A strong sense of pride in their work was observed (mean score: 3.81), with 68% of survey participants scoring 4 or 5. Similarly, a high level of peer connection was reported (mean score: 3.67), with 75% of respondents scoring 4 or 5, contributing to an overall high level of perceived job satisfaction (mean score: 3.57, with 73% scoring 4 or 5).

No significant differences were found based on working in a public or private hospital (p-value = 0.059). However, further analysis revealed that a better perception of psychological safety, professional engagement, mental well-being, and physical safety all positively influenced PRO-QoL. Additionally, age appeared to play a role, with older professionals (> 60 years) reporting significantly higher levels of professional quality of life (mean score: 3.55) compared to younger age groups (p = 0.001). This suggests that both workplace support systems and accumulated professional experience may contribute to a more positive work perception over time.

In addition, significant variations emerged at a country level (p = 0.001). Healthcare professionals in the Nordic countries and UK & Ireland reported the highest levels of professional quality of life, with 78% and 71% of respondents rating their satisfaction as high, respectively. Conversely, survey participants from France reported the lowest levels of satisfaction (47% of study sample answering to be satisfied on their PRO-QoL).

Table 4 Healthcare professionals’ quality of life (PRO-QoL).
Full size table

Impact of technology adoption within the healthcare worker’s main working activities

Table 5 shows that respondents used a variety of technologies and solutions. In pharmacy departments, nearly half of the sample (48%) reported using both automated solutions and drug preparation and management solutions. In diagnostic laboratories, a substantial proportion (71%) indicated the use of medical devices for lab analysis, coupled with automated solutions. This suggests that automation is particularly embedded in these settings, where precision, standardization, and efficiency are critical for daily operations. Conversely, in hospital wards, the predominant technology used was safety catheters and devices, reported by 58% of survey participants. This reflects the primary focus on patient safety and infection control in ward-based clinical activities. A small proportion of ward-based professionals (7%) reported being engaged in the use of drug-management technologies, whereas 12% indicated that they do not employ any technological solutions in their routine work.

Table 5 Technologies used by respondents.
Full size table

As shown in Fig. 3, up to 40% of respondents from the Ward agreed that safety catheters and devices, drug management solutions, or both contribute to improved safety conditions, while 52% acknowledged a reduction in the perceived risk of medication errors. Additionally, 50% of ward professionals reported that the implementation of these technologies or solutions has enhanced overall efficiency in their daily work. Beyond safety improvements, the results highlight that integration of these technologies or solutions has facilitated workflow optimization (46%), thus being easy to use (40%) and well-integrated into current processes (47%). However, concerns remain regarding workload reduction, with only 13% of respondents being agree with this potentiality.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Perceived impact of safety catheters and devices, drug management solutions, or both by respondents working in the ward.

Full size image

The analysis of responses from pharmacy professionals (Fig. 4) reveals a generally positive perception of automated solutions and drug management systems in terms of safety, efficiency, and error reduction. Specifically, 47% of respondents agreed that these technologies contribute to improved safety conditions, while 54% acknowledged a reduction in the perceived risk of medication errors. Moreover, 59% agreed that the implementation of automated solutions and drug preparation technologies has enhanced overall efficiency in pharmaceutical operations. However, perceptions regarding training support and the ease of transitioning from old to new technologies varied: a notable proportion (20%) expressed dissatisfaction with the level of training provided, suggesting potential gaps in educational support and implementation strategies.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Perceived impact of automated solutions, drug preparation and management solutions, or both by respondents working in the pharmacy.

Full size image

The integration of medical devices and automated solutions in diagnostic laboratories has been widely recognized as beneficial by professionals in this setting. As illustrated in Fig. 5, 78% of respondents from diagnostic laboratories agreed that these technologies have significantly improved efficiency, streamlining laboratory workflows and optimizing resources utilization, thus also acknowledging improvements in time to results (76%) and enhancing turnaround time (72%). However, training support remains an area of concern, as 17% of professionals expressed dissatisfaction with the level of training provided, indicating that ongoing educational initiatives could further improve the effective use of these solutions.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Perceived impact of medical devices for lab analysis, automated solutions, or both by respondents working in the diagnostic laboratory.

Full size image

Discussion

This study offers valuable insights into healthcare professionals’ well-being, also considering organizational and technological factors shaping their daily-working environment.

The results revealed significant differences in healthcare worker perceptions of psychological and physical safety, professional engagement, and mental well-being across hospital settings and regions. While pharmacy professionals reported high perceptions of safety ward staff tended to report low levels of both engagement and safety. Diagnostic laboratory professionals expressed concerns related to radiation exposure, reflecting findings by40 on how occupational and environmental risks shape safety perceptions. Interpersonal aggression, particularly in ward settings, was frequently reported and may further contribute to stress and disengagement. Regionally, physical safety obtained high rate of perceptions in Nordic countries, while psychological safety obtained low perceptions in Italy. Belgium and the Netherlands tended to report low levels of engagement, whereas the GSA region reported high rates of mental well-being perceptions, and Spain markedly reduced mental well-being. These differences may reflect broader organizational influences, as highlighted by41, who emphasized the role of national systems and institutional support in shaping psychological safety and job satisfaction. Moreover, these findings may also be partially explained by broader cultural dimensions. Cultural values can significantly shape healthcare professionals’ perceptions of safety, collaboration, and engagement42. For instance, contexts characterized by hierarchical professional cultures may inhibit open communication and psychological safety, whereas more egalitarian environments tend to promote engagement and shared responsibility31,32. Such differences may partly account for the regional variations observed in the results and reinforce the need for culturally sensitive organizational interventions aimed at improving well-being and safety across diverse healthcare settings. The findings suggest that both hospital setting and geographical context should influence professionals’ perceptions on safety, engagement, and well-being, and should therefore be considered when designing interventions aimed at improving work environments in healthcare. In addition, the study found that most healthcare professionals reported a high level of PRO-QoL, which was positively associated with psychological safety, mental well-being, physical safety, and engagement. Ward-based respondents in particular perceived technology as a contributor to improved safety and operational efficiency—especially in terms of reducing medication errors and enhancing collaboration. These results are in line with literature highlighting the positive impact of digital tools on workflow and professional experience43,44,45,46 further emphasize how well-integrated technologies can reduce cognitive burden and improve motivation. Technology has also been linked to the creation of safer, more sustainable workplaces47,48. However, these benefits must be interpreted with caution. As noted by50, the implementation of digital and automation technological solutions —particularly under pressure, such as in emergency department or in a shortage of personnels—was associated with increased burnout and reduced job satisfaction. This underscores the importance of contextual factors such as training, support, and system design.

Furthermore, the findings highlight technology’s potential dual impact: it can serve as a lever for motivation, efficiency, and job satisfaction when thoughtfully implemented and aligned with professional needs, but may also increase stress and disengagement when poorly introduced or insufficiently supported49,50. Respondents consistently emphasized the relevance of adequate training as a key enabler for successful technology adoption. Without sufficient training and ongoing support, even the most advanced technologies may be underutilized or misapplied, leading to frustration, inefficiencies, and suboptimal patient outcomes.

The results may have important implications for healthcare management and policy. First, they highlight the urgent need for context-sensitive interventions to support staff well-being, particularly in high-pressure settings such as hospital wards. While psychological safety is generally perceived as satisfactory, variations in engagement and physical safety point to the need for targeted actions to reduce risks perceived by the sample, including patients’ and colleagues’ aggression or environmental health hazards.

Second, the study emphasizes the role of adopting technologies in fostering safer, more sustainable healthcare work environments. Technologies that reduce physical and cognitive burden—such as automation and decision-support systems—can improve motivation and free-up time. However, staff involvement in the co-design of these technologies is essential, as participatory approaches have been shown to enhance engagement and long-term sustainability51.

Lastly, these insights provide valuable guidance for policymakers, who can leverage professionals’ perceptions to develop evidence-informed strategies tailored to local needs. Investments in adequate staffing, inclusive leadership, and user-centered technologies are essential to build resilient, efficient, and human-centered healthcare systems. Listening to healthcare workers’ voices enables better resource allocation, reduces burnout, and enhances care quality.

Several practical recommendations can be made for healthcare leaders and policymakers. First, managers should design context-sensitive and culturally aware interventions that address the specific organizational challenges of different hospital settings (particularly wards, where workload and exposure to aggression are major sources of stress). Initiatives that promote open communication, teamwork, and psychological safety can help strengthen professional engagement and resilience. Second, training and participatory approaches should be prioritized in the introduction of new technologies: as such, the involvement of healthcare professionals in the co-design and implementation processes ensures that innovative technologies are aligned with clinical workflows, reduce cognitive burden, and enhance rather than hinder well-being. Third, policy actions should aim to institutionalize staff well-being as a strategic priority. Policymakers can leverage professionals’ perceptions to design evidence-informed, locally tailored strategies that foster safe, sustainable, and human-centered healthcare environments. Investments in adequate staffing, leadership development, and supportive digital infrastructures are key to reducing burnout and enhancing both workforce and system performance.

This study has several limitations. First, the distribution method resulted in a sample primarily from Europe, with a strong representation from Italy. While participants from the Middle East and Africa were included, their small numbers make it difficult to draw region-specific conclusions. Nevertheless, their inclusion provides valuable insights from countries that are rarely represented in similar research, underscoring the global relevance of the topic. Second, individual-level variables (e.g., years of experience, specific roles) were not fully controlled, possibly influencing perceptions. Third, cultural differences in attitudes toward safety and well-being may have affected responses across countries.

Nonetheless, the study has important strengths. Working through scientific associations that represent a broad range of professional categories helped reduce common method bias, while ensuring anonymity and trust. Second, the inclusion of participants from multiple geographical contexts—including various European countries and the Middle East—provides descriptive insights into organizational well-being across heterogeneous healthcare systems. However, the unequal distribution of respondents and the underrepresentation of some regional subgroups, partly reflecting the limited reach of certain associations in specific territories, restrict the statistical generalizability of the findings. Therefore, results should be interpreted as exploratory and context-specific.

Future research should aim for wider geographical coverage and a more balanced mix of professional roles, especially in underrepresented regions such as the Middle East and Africa. Furthermore, longitudinal study designs are recommended to monitor how perceptions evolve, particularly in response to organizational and technological changes. Finally, adopting a cross-cultural perspective could clarify how national culture, organizational climate, and healthcare system characteristics shape professionals’ well-being and engagement.

Conclusions

This study highlights the relevance of healthcare professionals’ well-being as a key organizational priority, demonstrating how different hospital settings and working conditions influence professionals’ experiences of safety, engagement, and well-being. While technology adoption can support these dimensions, its effectiveness depends on how it is introduced and integrated into daily practice.

By capturing the perspectives of healthcare professionals across diverse contexts, the findings offer a practical foundation for improving organizational practices and guiding evidence-informed policy—ultimately fostering a supportive and sustainable work environment.