Dataset Information

A qualitative analysis of the Three Good Things intervention in healthcare workers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel have an elevated prevalence of job-related burn-out and post-traumatic stress disorder, which can ultimately impact patient care. To strengthen healthcare workers' skills to deal with stressful events, it is important to focus not only on minimising suffering but also on increasing happiness, as this entails many more benefits than simply feeling good. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the content of the 'good things' reported by healthcare workers participating in the 'Three Good Things' intervention.

Methods

In a tertiary care medical centre, a sample of 89 neonatal ICU (NICU) healthcare professionals registered for the online intervention. Of these, 32 individuals eventually participated fully in the 14-day online Three Good Things intervention survey. Daily emails reminded participants to reflect on and respond to the questions: "What are the three things that went well today?" and "What was your role in bringing them about?" To analyse their responses, we applied a thematic analysis, which was guided by our theoretical understanding of resilience.

Results

Involving more than 1300 statements, the Three Good Things responses of the 32 study participants, including registered nurses, physicians and neonatal nurse practitioners, led to the identification of three main themes: (1) having a good day at work; (2) having supportive relationships and (3) making meaningful use of self-determined time.

Conclusions

The findings show the personal and professional relevance of supportive relationships strengthened by clear communication and common activities that foster positive emotions. The Three Good Things exercise acknowledges the importance of self-care in healthcare workers and appears to promote well-being, which might ultimately strengthen resilience.

SUBMITTER: Rippstein-Leuenberger K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5623381 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative analysis of the Three Good Things intervention in healthcare workers.

Rippstein-Leuenberger Karin K Mauthner Oliver O Bryan Sexton J J Schwendimann Rene R

BMJ open 20170613 5

<h4>Background</h4>Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel have an elevated prevalence of job-related burn-out and post-traumatic stress disorder, which can ultimately impact patient care. To strengthen healthcare workers' skills to deal with stressful events, it is important to focus not only on minimising suffering but also on increasing happiness, as this entails many more benefits than simply feeling good. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the content of the 'good things' reported b ...[more]

PMID: 28611090

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReadmission of a patient to a hospital is typically associated with significant clinical changes in the patient's condition, but it is unknown how healthcare workers modify their provision of care when considering these changes. The purpose of the present study was to determine how healthcare workers shift their care strategies when treating readmitted patients.MethodsA typical case sampling study of healthcare workers was conducted using the grounded theory approach. The study setting comprised several patient care units at an academic center and tertiary-care hospital. We purposively sampled 34 healthcare workers (19 women, 15 men) to participate in individual interviews, either face-to-face or by telephone. We asked the participants semi structured questions regarding their thoughts on readmissions and how they altered their process and behavior for readmitted patients. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used a qualitative data analyses based on an inductive approach to generate themes about how healthcare workers shift their strategies for readmitted patients.ResultsHealthcare workers' shifts in strategy for readmissions were reflected in three major themes: clinical assessment, use and management of information, and communication patterns. Participants reported that they became more conservative in their assessment of the clinical condition of a readmitted patient. The participants also indicated that readmitted patients would be treated in a similar way to normal admission based on care requirements; however, somewhat paradoxically, they also expressed that having access to prior patient information changed the way they treated a readmitted patient.ConclusionsAlthough healthcare workers may exhibit a tendency to become more conservative with readmissions, readily available patient information from the previous admission played a large part in guiding their thinking. A more conservative approach with a readmitted patient, on its own, does not necessarily lead to improved documentation or better patient care.

Project description:BackgroundSeasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers (HCW) is widely recommended to protect staff and patients. A previous systematic review examined interventions to encourage uptake finding that hard mandates, such as loss of employment for non-vaccination, were more effective than soft mandates, such as signing a declination form, or other interventions such as incentives. Despite these overarching patterns the authors of the review concluded that 'substantial heterogeneity' remained requiring further analysis. This paper reanalyses the evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to examine whether the strategies used to implement interventions explain the residual heterogeneity.MethodsWe used ICA to extract implementation features and trialists' reflections on what underpinned the success of the intervention they evaluated. The ICA findings then informed and structured two QCA analyses to systematically examine associations between implementation features and intervention outcomes. Analysis 1 examined hard mandate studies. Analysis 2 examined soft mandates and other interventions.ResultsIn Analysis 1 ICA revealed the significance of 'leading from the front' rather than 'top-down' implementation of hard mandates. Four key features underpinned this: providing education prior to implementation; two-way engagement so HCW can voice concerns prior to implementation; previous use of other strategies so that institutions 'don't-go-in-cold' with hard-mandates; and support from institutional leadership. QCA revealed that either of two configurations were associated with greater success of hard mandates. The first involves two-way engagement, leadership support and a 'don't-go-in-cold' approach. The second involves leadership support, education and a 'don't-go-in-cold' approach. Reapplying the 'leading from the front' theory in Analysis 2 revealed similar patterns.ConclusionsRegardless of intervention type a 'leading from the front' approach to implementation will likely enhance intervention success. While the results pertain to flu vaccination among HCWs, the components identified here may be relevant to public health campaigns regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Dataset Information

A qualitative analysis of the Three Good Things intervention in healthcare workers.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A qualitative analysis of the Three Good Things intervention in healthcare workers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets