Use of Schwartz Centre Rounds in a UK hospice: Findings from a longitudinal evaluation

Abstract

Schwartz Centre Rounds® aim to explore the human and emotional impact of everyday work by giving healthcare staff the opportunity to come together in a safe but open environment. We evaluated the experience of introducing Schwartz Centre Rounds in a UK hospice over 1-year using a mixed method approach. These rounds were reported as providing staff with a greater appreciation of the interprofessional approach. Individuals were more actively acknowledged by other colleagues as a result of contributions at rounds with an appreciation of a wider team, spanning the whole organisation. This appeared to relieve feelings of isolation and enhance a sense of shared purpose. Some staff chose not to attend but valued their contribution to the organisation without witnessing the emotional impact of hospice work. Our findings indicate that Schwartz Rounds offer staff the environment to explore the human element of their work and appear to improve interprofessional working.

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

“… 76 Two were quantitative studies, and one qualitative study. Only one study included non-attenders 66 ( table 2 ).…”

Emotional labour in palliative and end-of-life care communication: A qualitative study with generalist palliative care providers

“…All staff have a role to play in normalising the need for emotional support. This might include facilitating and/or participating in experience sharing and reflection activities, such as Schwartz rounds, which evidence suggests support communication and compassion [62,63].…”

The nature and benefits of team-based reflection on a patient death by healthcare professionals: a scoping review

“…In setting a narrow criteria for health and social care teams we may have missed peripheral members such as spiritual leaders. Reflection as a term is complex and we may have missed new words where reflection is implied such as the recent growth in Schwartz rounds (Reed, Cullen, Gannon, Knight, Todd, 2015). Similarly in looking only at interprofessional groups we ignored a vast literature on predominately medically led teams, often from different branches of medicine, focussing on clinical outcomes for patient safety (Higginson, Walter & Fulop, 2012).…”