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

C Taylor, A Xyrichis, MC Leamy, E Reynolds, J Maben

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>(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.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>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).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Data sources</jats:title><jats:p>PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Eligibility criteria</jats:title><jats:p>Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec>
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e024254-e024254
Number of pages0
JournalBMJ Open
Volume8
Issue number10
Early online date18 Oct 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this