对英国医院医生工作场所幸福感的支持:压力下的护理现实主义评估。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Anna Melvin, Alison Pearson, Daniele Carrieri, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Jessica Scott, Helen Foster Collins, Stuart McPhail, Mark Pearson, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Geoff Wong, Karen Mattick
{"title":"对英国医院医生工作场所幸福感的支持:压力下的护理现实主义评估。","authors":"Anna Melvin, Alison Pearson, Daniele Carrieri, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Jessica Scott, Helen Foster Collins, Stuart McPhail, Mark Pearson, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Geoff Wong, Karen Mattick","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The vital role of medical workforce well-being for improving patient experience and population health while assuring safety and reducing costs is recognised internationally. Yet the persistence of poor well-being outcomes suggests that current support initiatives are suboptimal. The aim of this research study was to work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Realist evaluation consistent with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) II quality standards. Realist interviews (n=124) with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders in eight hospital settings (England) were analysed using realist logic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were four key findings, underpinned by 21 context-mechanism-outcome configurations: (1) solutions needed to align with problems, to support doctor well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) doctors needed to be involved in creating solutions to their well-being problems; (3) doctors often did not know what support was available to help them with well-being problems and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Doctors are mandated to 'first, do no harm' to their patients, and the same consideration should be extended to doctors themselves. Since doctors can be harmed by poorly designed or implemented well-being interventions, new approaches need careful planning and evaluation. Our research identified many ineffective or harmful interventions that could be stopped. The findings are likely transferable to other settings and countries, given the realist approach leading to principles and causal explanations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Support for hospital doctors' workplace well-being in England: the Care Under Pressure 3 realist evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Melvin, Alison Pearson, Daniele Carrieri, Charlotte Bramwell, Jason Hancock, Jessica Scott, Helen Foster Collins, Stuart McPhail, Mark Pearson, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Geoff Wong, Karen Mattick\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The vital role of medical workforce well-being for improving patient experience and population health while assuring safety and reducing costs is recognised internationally. Yet the persistence of poor well-being outcomes suggests that current support initiatives are suboptimal. The aim of this research study was to work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Realist evaluation consistent with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) II quality standards. Realist interviews (n=124) with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders in eight hospital settings (England) were analysed using realist logic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were four key findings, underpinned by 21 context-mechanism-outcome configurations: (1) solutions needed to align with problems, to support doctor well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) doctors needed to be involved in creating solutions to their well-being problems; (3) doctors often did not know what support was available to help them with well-being problems and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Doctors are mandated to 'first, do no harm' to their patients, and the same consideration should be extended to doctors themselves. Since doctors can be harmed by poorly designed or implemented well-being interventions, new approaches need careful planning and evaluation. Our research identified many ineffective or harmful interventions that could be stopped. The findings are likely transferable to other settings and countries, given the realist approach leading to principles and causal explanations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017698\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017698","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:医疗人员福祉的重要作用,以改善病人的经验和人口健康,同时确保安全和降低成本是国际公认的。然而,持续的不良福祉结果表明,目前的支持举措是次优的。本研究的目的是与不同的医院环境合作,并从中学习,以了解如何优化策略,以提高医生的福祉,减少对劳动力和患者护理的负面影响。方法:现实主义评价与现实主义和元叙事证据综合:发展标准(RAMESES) II质量标准一致。使用现实主义逻辑分析了八家医院(英格兰)的医生、福祉干预实施人员/从业者和领导者的现实主义访谈(n=124)。结果:在21种情境-机制-结果配置的基础上,有四个关键发现:(1)解决方案需要与问题保持一致,以支持医生福祉并避免对医生造成伤害;(2)医生需要参与为他们的健康问题创造解决方案;(3)医生往往不知道有什么支持可以帮助他们解决幸福感问题;(4)在获得幸福感支持方面存在身体和心理障碍。讨论和结论:医生被要求“首先,不伤害”他们的病人,同样的考虑应该扩展到医生自己。由于设计或实施不当的健康干预措施可能对医生造成伤害,新方法需要仔细规划和评估。我们的研究发现,许多无效或有害的干预措施是可以停止的。考虑到导致原则和因果解释的现实主义方法,这些发现可能适用于其他环境和国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Support for hospital doctors' workplace well-being in England: the Care Under Pressure 3 realist evaluation.

Introduction: The vital role of medical workforce well-being for improving patient experience and population health while assuring safety and reducing costs is recognised internationally. Yet the persistence of poor well-being outcomes suggests that current support initiatives are suboptimal. The aim of this research study was to work with, and learn from, diverse hospital settings to understand how to optimise strategies to improve doctors' well-being and reduce negative impacts on the workforce and patient care.

Methods: Realist evaluation consistent with the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) II quality standards. Realist interviews (n=124) with doctors, well-being intervention implementers/practitioners and leaders in eight hospital settings (England) were analysed using realist logic.

Results: There were four key findings, underpinned by 21 context-mechanism-outcome configurations: (1) solutions needed to align with problems, to support doctor well-being and avoid harm to doctors; (2) doctors needed to be involved in creating solutions to their well-being problems; (3) doctors often did not know what support was available to help them with well-being problems and (4) there were physical and psychological barriers to accessing well-being support.

Discussion and conclusion: Doctors are mandated to 'first, do no harm' to their patients, and the same consideration should be extended to doctors themselves. Since doctors can be harmed by poorly designed or implemented well-being interventions, new approaches need careful planning and evaluation. Our research identified many ineffective or harmful interventions that could be stopped. The findings are likely transferable to other settings and countries, given the realist approach leading to principles and causal explanations.

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
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
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