Cargando…

Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews

OBJECTIVES: (i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds. DESIGN: Systematic review of Round...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor, Cath, Xyrichis, Andreas, Leamy, Mary C, Reynolds, Ellie, Maben, Jill
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30341142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024254
_version_ 1783364660975632384
author Taylor, Cath
Xyrichis, Andreas
Leamy, Mary C
Reynolds, Ellie
Maben, Jill
author_facet Taylor, Cath
Xyrichis, Andreas
Leamy, Mary C
Reynolds, Ellie
Maben, Jill
author_sort Taylor, Cath
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: (i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds. DESIGN: Systematic review of Rounds literature; scoping reviews of comparator interventions (action learning sets; after action reviews; Balint groups; caregiver support programme; clinical supervision; critical incident stress debriefing; mindfulness-based stress reduction; peer-supported storytelling; psychosocial intervention training; reflective practice groups; resilience training). DATA SOURCES: PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English. RESULTS: The overall evidence base for Rounds is limited. We developed a composite definition to aid comparison with other interventions from 41 documents containing a definition of Rounds. Twelve (10 studies) were empirical evaluations. All were of low/moderate quality (weak study designs including lack of control groups). Findings showed the value of Rounds to attenders, with a self-reported positive impact on individuals, their relationships with colleagues and patients and wider cultural changes. The evidence for the comparative interventions was scant and also low/moderate quality. Some features of Rounds were shared by other interventions, but Rounds offer unique features including being open to all staff and having no expectation for verbal contribution by attenders. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of effectiveness for all interventions considered here remains limited. Methods that enable identification of core features related to effectiveness are needed to optimise benefit for individual staff members and organisations as a whole. A systems approach conceptualising workplace well-being arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the well-being of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff well-being.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6196967
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61969672018-10-25 Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews Taylor, Cath Xyrichis, Andreas Leamy, Mary C Reynolds, Ellie Maben, Jill BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: (i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds. DESIGN: Systematic review of Rounds literature; scoping reviews of comparator interventions (action learning sets; after action reviews; Balint groups; caregiver support programme; clinical supervision; critical incident stress debriefing; mindfulness-based stress reduction; peer-supported storytelling; psychosocial intervention training; reflective practice groups; resilience training). DATA SOURCES: PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English. RESULTS: The overall evidence base for Rounds is limited. We developed a composite definition to aid comparison with other interventions from 41 documents containing a definition of Rounds. Twelve (10 studies) were empirical evaluations. All were of low/moderate quality (weak study designs including lack of control groups). Findings showed the value of Rounds to attenders, with a self-reported positive impact on individuals, their relationships with colleagues and patients and wider cultural changes. The evidence for the comparative interventions was scant and also low/moderate quality. Some features of Rounds were shared by other interventions, but Rounds offer unique features including being open to all staff and having no expectation for verbal contribution by attenders. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of effectiveness for all interventions considered here remains limited. Methods that enable identification of core features related to effectiveness are needed to optimise benefit for individual staff members and organisations as a whole. A systems approach conceptualising workplace well-being arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the well-being of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff well-being. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6196967/ /pubmed/30341142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024254 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Taylor, Cath
Xyrichis, Andreas
Leamy, Mary C
Reynolds, Ellie
Maben, Jill
Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews
title Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews
title_full Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews
title_fullStr Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews
title_full_unstemmed Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews
title_short Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews
title_sort can schwartz center rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? a systematic review and scoping reviews
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30341142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024254
work_keys_str_mv AT taylorcath canschwartzcenterroundssupporthealthcarestaffwithemotionalchallengesatworkandhowdotheycomparewithotherinterventionsaimedatprovidingsimilarsupportasystematicreviewandscopingreviews
AT xyrichisandreas canschwartzcenterroundssupporthealthcarestaffwithemotionalchallengesatworkandhowdotheycomparewithotherinterventionsaimedatprovidingsimilarsupportasystematicreviewandscopingreviews
AT leamymaryc canschwartzcenterroundssupporthealthcarestaffwithemotionalchallengesatworkandhowdotheycomparewithotherinterventionsaimedatprovidingsimilarsupportasystematicreviewandscopingreviews
AT reynoldsellie canschwartzcenterroundssupporthealthcarestaffwithemotionalchallengesatworkandhowdotheycomparewithotherinterventionsaimedatprovidingsimilarsupportasystematicreviewandscopingreviews
AT mabenjill canschwartzcenterroundssupporthealthcarestaffwithemotionalchallengesatworkandhowdotheycomparewithotherinterventionsaimedatprovidingsimilarsupportasystematicreviewandscopingreviews