Taylor Cath, Xyrichis Andreas, Leamy Mary C, Reynolds Ellie, Maben Jill
School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing , Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 18;8(10):e024254. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024254.
(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.
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).
PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts.
Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English.
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.
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.
(i)综合施瓦茨中心查房(查房)的证据基础,以评估其对医护人员的任何影响并确定关键特征;(ii)梳理具有类似目标的干预措施的证据,并将其有效性和关键特征与查房进行比较。
对查房文献进行系统综述;对比较干预措施(行动学习小组;事后回顾;巴林特小组;护理人员支持计划;临床督导;重大事件应激晤谈;基于正念的减压法;同伴支持的故事讲述;心理社会干预培训;反思实践小组;复原力培训)进行范围综述。
心理学文摘数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库、医学索引数据库和荷兰医学文摘数据库、互联网搜索引擎;与专家进行磋商。
实证评估(定性或定量);任何医疗环境中的任何医护人员;以英文发表。
查房的总体证据基础有限。我们从41份包含查房定义的文件中制定了一个综合定义,以帮助与其他干预措施进行比较。其中12份(10项研究)为实证评估。所有研究质量均为低/中等(研究设计薄弱,包括缺乏对照组)。研究结果显示查房对参与者具有价值,自我报告显示其对个人、他们与同事及患者的关系以及更广泛的文化变革产生了积极影响。比较干预措施的证据很少,质量也为低/中等。其他干预措施与查房有一些共同特征,但查房具有独特特征,包括对所有员工开放且不要求参与者进行口头发言。
此处考虑的所有干预措施的有效性证据仍然有限。需要能够识别与有效性相关的核心特征的方法,以优化对个体员工和整个组织的益处。需要一种系统方法,将工作场所的幸福感概念化为个体和环境/结构因素共同作用的结果,并包括用于评估和改善医护人员幸福感的干预措施。施瓦茨查房可被视为增强员工幸福感的一种策略。