Can Staff Be Supported to Deliver Compassionate Care Through Implementing Schwartz Rounds in Community and Mental Health Services?

Farr, Michelle; Barker, Rhiannon

doi:10.1177/1049732317702101

Cited by 43 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twelve empirical evaluations of Rounds were included ( table 2 ) arising from 10 studies (4 in the USA, 6 in the UK). Most were mixed methods evaluations, typically comprising attenders completing evaluation forms post-Round attendance, followed by interviews or focus groups (n=5), one mixed method study comprised case studies (observation/interviews) together with descriptive analysis of evaluation forms 75 and one used both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyse evaluation forms. 76 Two were quantitative studies, and one qualitative study.…”

Section: Evidence Base For Rounds: Results From the Systematic Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.DesignSystematic 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 sourcesPsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts.Eligibility criteriaEmpirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsEvidence 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.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Base For Rounds: Results From the Systematic Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The intervention's purpose is to provide care for the care providers, so that care providers can in turn provide exemplary care to their patients and families. As outlined by Farr and Barker (2017), Rounds are different than clinical supervision or clinical rounds. In the former two instances, the interactions are between two or more health care providers, and focus on problem solving, treatment options, and clinical care to be provided to patients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Compassionate Culture Within Pediatric Rehabilitation: Does the Schwartz Rounds™ Support Both Clinical and Nonclinical Hospital Workers in Managing Their Work Experiences?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schwartz Rounds™ offers an interprofessional forum for staff to openly engage in discussions about social-emotional aspects of care. We aimed to assess the perceived impact of Rounds in the health care context of pediatric rehabilitation, as well as a comparative analysis of how Rounds affected clinical versus nonclinical staff. Does effect on perceived outcomes was also investigated. Data were collected from 29 hospital staff (15 clinicians, 14 nonclinicians) who attended one, two, or three+ Rounds via semistructured interviews. Thematic analysis indicated impacts at the personal and social levels (e.g., reduced stress, increased level of approaching behaviors, normalizing and validating emotional experiences, and building bridges within the hospital). Data also revealed the novel finding of Rounds affecting professional knowledge and skills (e.g., interprofessional practice, reflective practice, clinical imagination). These findings elucidate how Schwartz Rounds™ is beneficial in a pediatric rehabilitation setting, albeit somewhat differentially for clinical and nonclinical staff.

show abstract

“…The aim of sharing experiences in this way is not to problem solve, but to make the emotional reality of the work more explicit. This encourages emotional resonance so that individuals feel less isolated and more trusting of each other, resulting in clear communication and improved care (Farr and Barker 2017).…”

Section: Reflecting Togethermentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing resilience: the role of nurses, healthcare teams and organisations

Barratt

2018

Nursing Standard

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussions about the sustainability of the NHS workforce have placed considerable emphasis on improving the resilience of healthcare professionals. However, when discussed in relation to individuals, the contextual aspects of resilience are often lost. Instead, individuals are burdened with the responsibility of increasing their resilience so that they can better cope with the challenges they experience rather than examining the external and environmental factors that can affect resilience. This article explores the concept of resilience and suggests ways in which resilience can be developed by individuals and in collaboration with others, resulting in resilient healthcare teams and organisations capable of supporting individuals effectively. It aims to assist healthcare professionals to develop their resilience while also improving their understanding of the complex factors that can affect their coping capacity and how community influences the resilience of everyone.Keywords burnout, compassion, mental health, mindfulness, morale, organisational culture, patient experience, patients, personal development, professional issues, public health, staff welfare, wellbeing, workforce of 14 Aims and intended learning outcomesThis article aims to improve nurses' understanding of the concept of resilience. It provides the opportunity for nurses to reflect on their resilience and outlines strategies that they can use to improve their resilience and that of others. After reading this article and completing the time out activities you should be able to:» Describe what is meant by resilience.» Reflect on how resilient you feel and the factors that might be influencing this.» Understand and discuss how resilience is affected by external factors such as the work environment and relationships with colleagues, and how it may affect your professional practice.» Develop skills to increase your resilience and support the resilience of others.

show abstract

Can Staff Be Supported to Deliver Compassionate Care Through Implementing Schwartz Rounds in Community and Mental Health Services?

Cited by 43 publications

References 33 publications

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

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

Developing a Compassionate Culture Within Pediatric Rehabilitation: Does the Schwartz Rounds™ Support Both Clinical and Nonclinical Hospital Workers in Managing Their Work Experiences?

Developing resilience: the role of nurses, healthcare teams and organisations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About