...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Health Services Research >Realist evaluation of Schwartz rounds? for enhancing the delivery of compassionate healthcare: understanding how they work, for whom, and in what contexts
【24h】

Realist evaluation of Schwartz rounds? for enhancing the delivery of compassionate healthcare: understanding how they work, for whom, and in what contexts

机译:Schwartz Rounds的真实性评价? 为了提高富有同情心的医疗保健的交付:了解他们如何工作,为谁以及在什么背景下

获取原文
           

摘要

Healthcare work is known to be stressful and challenging, and there are recognised links between the psychological health of staff and high-quality patient care. Schwartz Center Rounds? (Rounds) were developed to support healthcare staff to re-connect with their values through peer reflection, and to promote more compassionate patient care. Research to date has focussed on self-report surveys that measure satisfaction with Rounds but provide little analysis of how Rounds ‘work’ to produce their reported outcomes, how differing contexts may impact on this, nor make explicit the underlying theories in the conceptualisation and implementation of Rounds. Realist evaluation methods aimed to identify how Rounds work, for whom and in what contexts to deliver outcomes. We interviewed 97 key informants: mentors, facilitators, panellists and steering group members, using framework analysis to organise and analyse our data using realist logic. We identified mechanisms by which Rounds lead to outcomes, and contextual factors that impacted on this relationship, using formal theory to explain these findings. Four stages of Rounds were identified. We describe how, why and for whom Schwartz Rounds work through the relationships between nine partial programme theories. These include: trust safety and containment; group interaction; counter-cultural/3rd space for staff; self-disclosure; story-telling; role modelling vulnerability; contextualising patients and staff; shining a spotlight on hidden stories and roles; and reflection and resonance. There was variability in the way Rounds were run across organisations. Attendance for some staff was difficult. Rounds is likely to be a ‘slow intervention’ the impact of which develops over time. We identified the conditions needed for Rounds to work optimally. These contextual factors influence the intensity and therefore degree to which the key ingredients of Rounds (mechanisms) are activated along a continuum, to produce outcomes. Outcomes included: greater tolerance, empathy and compassion for self and others; increased honesty, openness, and resilience; improved teamwork and organisational change. Where optimally implemented, Rounds provide staff with a safe, reflective and confidential space to talk and support one another, the consequences of which include increased empathy and compassion for colleagues and patients, and positive changes to practice.
机译:众所周知,医疗保健工作受到压力和挑战性,并且在员工的心理健康与高质量的患者护理之间存在认可的联系。 Schwartz中心轮? (轮次)是开发的,支持医疗保健人员通过同伴反思重新连接他们的价值观,并促进更加富有同情心的患者护理。迄今为止的研究侧重于自我报告调查,这些调查衡量与回合的满足感,但对如何进行循环以产生其报告的结果的方式提供了很少的分析,不同的背景可能对此产生不同的影响,也不会使概念化和实施中的潜在理论明确轮次。现实主义评估方法旨在确定如何工作,为谁和在何种背景下提供结果。我们采访了97个关键信息人:导师,促进者,小组成员和指导小组成员,使用框架分析来组织和分析我们的数据使用现实主义逻辑。我们确定了轮次导致结果的机制,以及利用正式理论解释这些调查结果对这种关系影响的内容因素。确定了四个阶段。我们描述了如何,为什么和为谁通过九个部分计划理论之间的关系来工作。这些包括:信任安全和遏制;群体互动;员工的反文化/第三空间;自披露;评书;角色建模漏洞;情境化患者和员工;在隐藏的故事和角色上闪耀着聚光灯;和反思和共鸣。轮队跨越组织的方式有变异性。一些员工的出席很困难。回合可能是“缓慢干预”,其影响随着时间的推移而产生的影响。我们确定了最佳工作所需的条件。这些上下文因素影响强度,因此沿连续体激活圆形(机制)的关键成分的程度,以产生结果。结果包括:自我和其他人的更大的宽容,同情和同情;增加诚实,开放和恢复力;改善团队合作和组织变革。在最佳实施的情况下,轮次为员工提供安全,反思和机密空间来互相谈话和支持,其后果包括增加同事和患者的同理心和同情,以及对实践的积极变化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号