护士、助产士和护理人员工作场所心理不健康的原因和解决方案:压力下的护理 2 现实主义审查。

Jill Maben, Cath Taylor, Justin Jagosh, D. Carrieri, Simon Briscoe, Naomi Klepacz, K. Mattick
{"title":"护士、助产士和护理人员工作场所心理不健康的原因和解决方案:压力下的护理 2 现实主义审查。","authors":"Jill Maben, Cath Taylor, Justin Jagosh, D. Carrieri, Simon Briscoe, Naomi Klepacz, K. Mattick","doi":"10.3310/TWDU4109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nNurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill-health. Existing literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves.\n\n\nAim\nTo improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in these professions.\n\n\nMethods\nRealist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards' reporting guidelines.\n\n\nData sources\nFirst round database searching in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), was undertaken between February and March 2021, followed by supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching, expert solicitation of key papers). Reverse chronology screening was applied, aimed at retaining 30 relevant papers in each profession. Round two database searches (December 2021) targeted COVID-19-specific literature and literature reviews. No date limits were applied.\n\n\nResults\nWe built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. Through the realist synthesis we surfaced 14 key tensions in the literature and identified five key findings, supported by 26 context mechanism and outcome configurations. The key findings identified the following: (1) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; (2) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (3) the needs of the system often override staff well-being at work ('serve and sacrifice'); (4) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors.\n\n\nConclusions\nOur realist synthesis strongly suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Healthcare organisations need to (1) rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive; (2) invest in multi-level system approaches to promote staff psychological well-being; and use an organisational diagnostic framework, such as the NHS England and NHS Improvement Health and Wellbeing framework, to self-assess and implement a systems approach to staff well-being.\n\n\nFuture work\nFuture research should implement, refine and evaluate systemic interventional strategies. Interventions and evaluations should be co-designed with front-line staff and staff experts by experience, and tailored where possible to local, organisational and workforce needs.\n\n\nLimitations\nThe literature was not equivalent in size and quality across the three professions and we did not carry out citation searches using hand searching and stakeholder/expert suggestions to augment our sample.\n\n\nStudy registration\nThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020172420. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420.\n\n\nFunding\nThis award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129528) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review.\",\"authors\":\"Jill Maben, Cath Taylor, Justin Jagosh, D. Carrieri, Simon Briscoe, Naomi Klepacz, K. Mattick\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/TWDU4109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background\\nNurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill-health. Existing literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves.\\n\\n\\nAim\\nTo improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in these professions.\\n\\n\\nMethods\\nRealist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards' reporting guidelines.\\n\\n\\nData sources\\nFirst round database searching in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), was undertaken between February and March 2021, followed by supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching, expert solicitation of key papers). Reverse chronology screening was applied, aimed at retaining 30 relevant papers in each profession. Round two database searches (December 2021) targeted COVID-19-specific literature and literature reviews. No date limits were applied.\\n\\n\\nResults\\nWe built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. Through the realist synthesis we surfaced 14 key tensions in the literature and identified five key findings, supported by 26 context mechanism and outcome configurations. The key findings identified the following: (1) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; (2) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (3) the needs of the system often override staff well-being at work ('serve and sacrifice'); (4) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors.\\n\\n\\nConclusions\\nOur realist synthesis strongly suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Healthcare organisations need to (1) rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive; (2) invest in multi-level system approaches to promote staff psychological well-being; and use an organisational diagnostic framework, such as the NHS England and NHS Improvement Health and Wellbeing framework, to self-assess and implement a systems approach to staff well-being.\\n\\n\\nFuture work\\nFuture research should implement, refine and evaluate systemic interventional strategies. Interventions and evaluations should be co-designed with front-line staff and staff experts by experience, and tailored where possible to local, organisational and workforce needs.\\n\\n\\nLimitations\\nThe literature was not equivalent in size and quality across the three professions and we did not carry out citation searches using hand searching and stakeholder/expert suggestions to augment our sample.\\n\\n\\nStudy registration\\nThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020172420. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420.\\n\\n\\nFunding\\nThis award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129528) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/TWDU4109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/TWDU4109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景护士、助产士和护理人员是国民健康服务中最大的临床工作人员群体,也是心理不健康发生率最高的群体。现有文献往往是针对特定职业的,而且侧重于个人干预,将良好心理健康的责任归咎于护士、助产士和护理人员本身。目的 提高对护士、助产士和护理人员如何、为何以及在何种情况下会出现与工作相关的心理不健康状况的认识;并确定可以实施哪些高质量的干预措施来尽量减少这些职业的心理不健康状况。数据来源2021年2月至3月期间,在医学文献分析与检索系统在线数据库ALL(通过Ovid)、护理与联合健康文献数据库累积索引(通过EBSCO)和健康管理信息联盟数据库(通过Ovid)中进行了第一轮数据库检索,随后采用了补充检索策略(如手工检索、专家征集关键论文)。采用逆序筛选法,旨在保留每个专业的 30 篇相关论文。第二轮数据库检索(2021 年 12 月)针对 COVID-19 的特定文献和文献综述。结果我们在七份关键报告的基础上,在第一轮检索中纳入了 75 篇论文(26 篇护理论文、26 篇助产论文、23 篇辅助医务人员论文),并在第二轮检索中纳入了 44 篇专家征集论文、29 篇文献综述和 49 篇 COVID-19 重点文章。通过现实主义综述,我们发现了文献中存在的 14 个主要矛盾,并确定了五个关键发现,同时辅以 26 个背景机制和结果配置。主要发现如下(1) 干预措施支离破碎,以个人为中心,对累积的慢性压力因素认识不足;(2) 在存在指责文化的情况下,很难促进员工的心理健康;(3) 系统的需求往往凌驾于员工的工作福祉之上("服务与牺牲");(4) 在工作中坚持和执行价值观会产生意想不到的个人成本;(5) 设计、确定和实施干预措施,使其对压力因素多样且相互影响的不同员工群体产生最佳效果,具有挑战性。结论我们的现实主义综合研究有力地表明,有必要改善护士、助产士和护理人员的系统性工作条件和工作生活,以提高他们的心理健康水平。单独的、一次性的心理干预不太可能取得成功。心理不健康在这些员工群体中非常普遍(可能是慢性的、累积性的,也可能是急性的),应该对其有所预料和准备,实际上应该使其正常化并被期待。医疗保健组织需要:(1)重新平衡工作环境,使医疗保健专业人员能够恢复健康并茁壮成长;(2)投资于多层次的系统方法,以促进员工的心理健康;并使用组织诊断框架,如英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS England)和英国国家医疗服务系统改善(NHS Improvement)的健康与幸福框架,对员工的健康进行自我评估并实施系统方法。干预和评估应与一线员工和员工经验专家共同设计,并尽可能根据当地、组织和员工队伍的需求量身定制。局限性这三个专业的文献在规模和质量上不尽相同,而且我们没有使用人工搜索和利益相关者/专家建议来进行引文检索,以增加我们的样本。研究注册本研究注册为 PROSPERO CRD42020172420。可从以下网址获取:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420.FundingThis 该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR129528)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第9期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review.
Background Nurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill-health. Existing literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves. Aim To improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in these professions. Methods Realist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards' reporting guidelines. Data sources First round database searching in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), was undertaken between February and March 2021, followed by supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching, expert solicitation of key papers). Reverse chronology screening was applied, aimed at retaining 30 relevant papers in each profession. Round two database searches (December 2021) targeted COVID-19-specific literature and literature reviews. No date limits were applied. Results We built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. Through the realist synthesis we surfaced 14 key tensions in the literature and identified five key findings, supported by 26 context mechanism and outcome configurations. The key findings identified the following: (1) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; (2) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (3) the needs of the system often override staff well-being at work ('serve and sacrifice'); (4) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors. Conclusions Our realist synthesis strongly suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Healthcare organisations need to (1) rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive; (2) invest in multi-level system approaches to promote staff psychological well-being; and use an organisational diagnostic framework, such as the NHS England and NHS Improvement Health and Wellbeing framework, to self-assess and implement a systems approach to staff well-being. Future work Future research should implement, refine and evaluate systemic interventional strategies. Interventions and evaluations should be co-designed with front-line staff and staff experts by experience, and tailored where possible to local, organisational and workforce needs. Limitations The literature was not equivalent in size and quality across the three professions and we did not carry out citation searches using hand searching and stakeholder/expert suggestions to augment our sample. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020172420. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129528) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信