Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention
Abstract Background Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2020-11-01
|
Series: | BMC Health Services Research |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2 |
id |
doaj-cf28a77f106a44599fab5da2b9820c76 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-cf28a77f106a44599fab5da2b9820c762020-11-29T12:04:34ZengBMCBMC Health Services Research1472-69632020-11-0120111410.1186/s12913-020-05948-2Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training interventionJudith Johnson0Ruth Simms-Ellis1Gillian Janes2Thomas Mills3Luke Budworth4Lauren Atkinson5Reema Harrison6School of Psychology, University of LeedsSchool of Psychology, University of LeedsBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal InfirmaryBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal InfirmaryBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal InfirmarySchool of Psychology, University of LeedsSchool of Psychology, University of LeedsAbstract Background Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. Methods The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1); after the workshop (T2); after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events (‘Confidence’), a Knowledge assessment (‘Knowledge’) and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. Results We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. β = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08–2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. β = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42–3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. β = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31–3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. β = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. β = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82–3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. β = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45–3.62, d = 0.65, p < .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the ‘tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery’, suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the ‘importance of experience and reference points for learning’, suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the ‘peer learning and engagement’ they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, ‘opportunities to tailor learning’, suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. Conclusions We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2ResilienceResilience coachingOccupational stressHealthcare workforceAdverse events |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Judith Johnson Ruth Simms-Ellis Gillian Janes Thomas Mills Luke Budworth Lauren Atkinson Reema Harrison |
spellingShingle |
Judith Johnson Ruth Simms-Ellis Gillian Janes Thomas Mills Luke Budworth Lauren Atkinson Reema Harrison Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention BMC Health Services Research Resilience Resilience coaching Occupational stress Healthcare workforce Adverse events |
author_facet |
Judith Johnson Ruth Simms-Ellis Gillian Janes Thomas Mills Luke Budworth Lauren Atkinson Reema Harrison |
author_sort |
Judith Johnson |
title |
Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_short |
Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_full |
Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_fullStr |
Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_full_unstemmed |
Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
title_sort |
can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? a mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Health Services Research |
issn |
1472-6963 |
publishDate |
2020-11-01 |
description |
Abstract Background Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. Methods The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1); after the workshop (T2); after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events (‘Confidence’), a Knowledge assessment (‘Knowledge’) and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. Results We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. β = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08–2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. β = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42–3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. β = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31–3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. β = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. β = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82–3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. β = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45–3.62, d = 0.65, p < .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the ‘tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery’, suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the ‘importance of experience and reference points for learning’, suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the ‘peer learning and engagement’ they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, ‘opportunities to tailor learning’, suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. Conclusions We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this. |
topic |
Resilience Resilience coaching Occupational stress Healthcare workforce Adverse events |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05948-2 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT judithjohnson canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT ruthsimmsellis canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT gillianjanes canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT thomasmills canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT lukebudworth canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT laurenatkinson canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention AT reemaharrison canwepreparehealthcareprofessionalsandstudentsforinvolvementinstressfulhealthcareeventsamixedmethodsevaluationofaresiliencetrainingintervention |
_version_ |
1724412325634506752 |