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

Taylor, Cath, Xyrichis, Andreas, Leamy, Mary, Reynolds, Ellie and Maben, Jill (2018) Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare to other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping review BMJ Open, 8 (10), e024254.

Preview

Text __homes.surrey.ac.uk_home_.System_Desktop_e024254.full.pdf - Version of Record Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (337kB) | Preview

Abstract

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 (ten 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 wellbeing as arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the wellbeing of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff wellbeing.

Item Type:	Article
Divisions :	Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences > School of Biosciences and Medicine
Authors :	Name Email ORCID Taylor, Cath cath.taylor@surrey.ac.uk Xyrichis, Andreas Leamy, Mary Reynolds, Ellie Maben, Jill j.maben@surrey.ac.uk
Date :	18 October 2018
DOI :	10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024254
Copyright Disclaimer :	© 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/.
Depositing User :	Melanie Hughes
Date Deposited :	24 Aug 2018 12:58
Last Modified :	13 Dec 2018 11:13
URI:	http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/id/eprint/849095

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads