Cargando…
Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33246457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2 |
_version_ | 1783614406327795712 |
---|---|
author | Johnson, Judith Simms-Ellis, Ruth Janes, Gillian Mills, Thomas Budworth, Luke Atkinson, Lauren Harrison, Reema |
author_facet | Johnson, Judith Simms-Ellis, Ruth Janes, Gillian Mills, Thomas Budworth, Luke Atkinson, Lauren Harrison, Reema |
author_sort | Johnson, Judith |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. METHODS: The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1); after the workshop (T2); after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events (‘Confidence’), a Knowledge assessment (‘Knowledge’) and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. RESULTS: We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. β = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08–2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. β = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42–3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. β = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31–3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. β = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. β = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82–3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. β = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45–3.62, d = 0.65, p < .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the ‘tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery’, suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the ‘importance of experience and reference points for learning’, suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the ‘peer learning and engagement’ they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, ‘opportunities to tailor learning’, suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. CONCLUSIONS: We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7691965 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76919652020-11-27 Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention Johnson, Judith Simms-Ellis, Ruth Janes, Gillian Mills, Thomas Budworth, Luke Atkinson, Lauren Harrison, Reema BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. METHODS: The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1); after the workshop (T2); after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events (‘Confidence’), a Knowledge assessment (‘Knowledge’) and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. RESULTS: We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. β = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08–2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. β = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42–3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. β = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31–3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. β = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. β = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82–3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. β = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45–3.62, d = 0.65, p < .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the ‘tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery’, suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the ‘importance of experience and reference points for learning’, suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the ‘peer learning and engagement’ they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, ‘opportunities to tailor learning’, suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. CONCLUSIONS: We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2. BioMed Central 2020-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7691965/ /pubmed/33246457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Johnson, Judith Simms-Ellis, Ruth Janes, Gillian Mills, Thomas Budworth, Luke Atkinson, Lauren Harrison, Reema Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title | Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_full | Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_fullStr | Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_full_unstemmed | Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_short | Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_sort | can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? a mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33246457 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT johnsonjudith canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT simmsellisruth canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT janesgillian canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT millsthomas canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT budworthluke canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT atkinsonlauren canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT harrisonreema canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention |