Melvin Anna, Pearson Alison, Carrieri Daniele, Bramwell Charlotte, Hancock Jason, Scott Jessica, Foster Collins Helen, McPhail Stuart, Pearson Mark, Papoutsi Chrysanthi, Wong Geoff, Mattick Karen
Department of Health & Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2025 Jun 19;34(7):443-456. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017698.
The vital role of medical workforce well-being for improving patient experience and population health while assuring safety and reducing costs is recognised internationally. Yet the persistence of poor well-being outcomes suggests that current support initiatives are suboptimal. The aim of this research study was to work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.
Realist evaluation consistent with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) II quality standards. Realist interviews (n=124) with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders in eight hospital settings (England) were analysed using realist logic.
There were four key findings, underpinned by 21 context-mechanism-outcome configurations: (1) solutions needed to align with problems, to support doctor well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) doctors needed to be involved in creating solutions to their well-being problems; (3) doctors often did not know what support was available to help them with well-being problems and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support.
Doctors are mandated to 'first, do no harm' to their patients, and the same consideration should be extended to doctors themselves. Since doctors can be harmed by poorly designed or implemented well-being interventions, new approaches need careful planning and evaluation. Our research identified many ineffective or harmful interventions that could be stopped. The findings are likely transferable to other settings and countries, given the realist approach leading to principles and causal explanations.
医疗工作者的福祉对于改善患者体验和群体健康、确保安全以及降低成本具有至关重要的作用,这一点在国际上已得到认可。然而,不良福祉结果持续存在,这表明当前的支持举措并不理想。本研究的目的是与不同的医院环境合作并从中学习,以了解如何优化策略来改善医生的福祉,并减少对医疗工作者和患者护理的负面影响。
采用与《现实主义与元叙事证据综合:不断发展的标准》(RAMESES)II质量标准一致的现实主义评价方法。对英格兰八家医院的医生、福祉干预实施者/从业者和领导者进行了124次现实主义访谈,并运用现实主义逻辑进行分析。
有四项关键发现,由21种背景 - 机制 - 结果配置支撑:(1)解决方案需要与问题相匹配,以支持医生的福祉并避免对医生造成伤害;(2)医生需要参与制定解决其福祉问题的方案;(3)医生通常不知道有哪些支持可帮助他们解决福祉问题;(4)在获得福祉支持方面存在身体和心理障碍。
医生被要求对患者“首先,不造成伤害”,同样的考量也应适用于医生自身。由于设计或实施不当的福祉干预可能会伤害医生,新方法需要仔细规划和评估。我们的研究发现了许多可能会停止的无效或有害干预措施。鉴于现实主义方法得出了原则和因果解释,这些发现可能适用于其他环境和国家。