Dataset Information

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.

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 (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.

Conclusions

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.

SUBMITTER: Taylor C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6196967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSchwartz Center Rounds® (henceforce Rounds) were developed in the United States (US) in 1995 to provide a regular, structured time and safe place for staff to meet to share the emotional, psychological and social challenges of working in healthcare. Rounds were adopted in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2009 and have been subsequently implemented in over 180 healthcare organisations. Using Rounds as a case study, we aim to inform current debates around maintaining fidelity when an intervention developed in one country is transferred and implemented in another.MethodsInterpretive design using nine qualitative interviews (UK = 3, US = 6) and four focus groups (UK: Focus group 1 (4 participants), Focus group 2 (5 participants; US: focus group 1 (5 participants) focus group 2 (2 participants) with participants involved in Rounds design and implementation, for example, programme architects, senior leaders, mentors and trainers. We also conducted non-participant observations of Rounds (UK = 42: USA = 2) and training days (UK = 2). Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified four core and seven sub-core Rounds components, based upon the US design, and seven peripheral components, based on our US and UK fieldwork. We found high core component fidelity and examples of UK adaptations. We identified six strategies used to maintain high fidelity during Rounds transfer and implementation from the US to UK settings: i) having a legal contract between the two national bodies overseeing implementation, ii) requiring adopting UK healthcare organisations to sign a contract with the national body, iii) piloting the intervention in the UK context, iv) emphasising the credibility of the intervention, v) promoting and evaluating Rounds, and vi) providing implementation support and infrastructure.ConclusionsThis study identifies how fidelity to the core components of a particular intervention was maintained during transfer from one country to another by identifying six strategies which participants argued had enhanced fidelity during transfer of Rounds to a different country, with contractual agreements and legitimacy of intervention sources key. Potential disadvantages include limitations to further innovation and adaptation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An experiential curriculum exposing medical students to the clinic early has many benefits but comes with the emotional stress this environment engenders. Schwartz rounds (SR) are an effective means to combat emotional stress and increasingly used in UK and USA hospitals. Recent studies show that the SR format may also provide benefits for medical students. This study aimed to investigate whether the guidance of SR in second year medical students provides the same benefits as to healthcare professionals. METHODS:SR assessment involved 83?s?year MBChB students in facilitated groupwork sessions. Topics discussed were "change and resilience" and "duty of candour". Students completed a Likert Scale questionnaire evaluating outcomes proffered by the Point of Care Foundation in collaboration with the Schwartz Foundation, with freeform feedback. RESULTS:There was an 86% completion rate with 25% providing written feedback. Participants were more likely to agree than disagree that SR were beneficial. SR effectiveness in enhancing students' working relationship awareness and skills was strongly correlated with understanding the purpose of, and engagement with, the SR (P?<?0.001). Similarly, engagement with the SR was strongly correlated with self-reporting of enhanced patient-centredness (P?<?0.001). Freeform feedback could be grouped into five themes that revolved around understanding of the SR and engagement with the process. Many positive comments regarded the SR as a forum not only to "learn experientially" but to so in a "safe environment". Many negative comments stemmed from students not seeing any benefits of engagement with the SR, in that sharing experiences was "unbeneficial", "empathy is inherent and not learnt", or that sharing emotional problems is simply "moaning". CONCLUSION:SRs are an effective way of fostering empathy and understanding towards patients and colleagues. However, for the students to benefit fully from the SR it is necessary for them to engage and understand the process. Therefore, for the successful implementation of SR into pre-clinical medical education, it is important to help students realise that SR are not merely a "facilitated whinge".

Project description:BackgroundInformation retrieval (IR) help clinicians answer questions posed to large collections of electronic medical records (EMRs), such as how best to identify a patient's cancer stage. One of the more promising approaches to IR for EMRs is to expand a keyword query with similar terms (e.g., augmenting cancer with mets). However, there is a large range of clinical chart review tasks, such that fixed sets of similar terms is insufficient. Current language models, such as Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) embeddings, do not capture the full non-textual context of a task. In this study, we present new methods that provide similar terms dynamically by adjusting with the context of the chart review task.MethodsWe introduce a vector space for medical-context in which each word is represented by a vector that captures the word's usage in different medical contexts (e.g., how frequently cancer is used when ordering a prescription versus describing family history) beyond the context learned from the surrounding text. These vectors are transformed into a vector space for customizing the set of similar terms selected for different chart review tasks. We evaluate the vector space model with multiple chart review tasks, in which supervised machine learning models learn to predict the preferred terms of clinically knowledgeable reviewers. To quantify the usefulness of the predicted similar terms to a baseline of standard word2vec embeddings, we measure (1) the prediction performance of the medical-context vector space model using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and (2) the labeling effort required to train the models.ResultsThe vector space outperformed the baseline word2vec embeddings in all three chart review tasks with an average AUROC of 0.80 versus 0.66, respectively. Additionally, the medical-context vector space significantly reduced the number of labels required to learn and predict the preferred similar terms of reviewers. Specifically, the labeling effort was reduced to 10% of the entire dataset in all three tasks.ConclusionsThe set of preferred similar terms that are relevant to a chart review task can be learned by leveraging the medical context of the task.