Reboot coaching programme: a mixed-methods evaluation assessing resilience, confidence, burnout and depression in medical students.

BACKGROUND: Poor mental health in medical students is a global concern. Effective interventions are required, which are tailored towards the training-related stressors medical students experience. The Reboot coaching programme is an online, tailored intervention based on cognitive-behavioural principles. AIMS: To evaluate whether the Reboot coaching programme tailored for medical students was feasible and associated with improvements in mental health outcome indicators. METHODS: Medical students participated in two group online workshops and a one-to-one coaching call with a Reboot-trained licensed psychological therapist. Participants provided data at: baseline (T1), post-workshops (T2), post-coaching call (T3) and 4-month follow-up (T4). Outcome measures included resilience, confidence, burnout and depression. Feedback was provided regarding the workshops at T2. RESULTS: 115 participants (93/80.9% women; mage = 23.9; SD = 2.8) were recruited, 83 (72.2%) completed all intervention elements and 82 (71.3%) provided T4 data, surpassing recruitment and retention targets. There were significant improvements following baseline in resilience (ps < .001), confidence (ps < .001), burnout (ps < .001) and depression (ps ≤ .001). Most participants agreed the workshops imparted useful skills (n = 92; 99%) and would recommend Reboot to others (n = 89; 95.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Existing interventions have produced mixed results regarding their effectiveness in improving medical students' mental health. Reboot is a feasible intervention in this group which is associated with improvements in resilience, confidence, burnout and depression. Further controlled studies of Reboot are now needed.

In-hospital stress and patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital inpatients are exposed to high levels of stress during hospitalisation that may increase susceptibility to major adverse health events post-hospitalisation (known as post-hospital syndrome). However, the existing evidence base has not been reviewed and the magnitude of this relationship remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) synthesise existing evidence and to determine the strength of the relationship between in-hospital stress and patient outcomes, and 2) determine if this relationship differs between (i) in-hospital vs post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective vs objective outcome measures. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to February 2023 was conducted. Included studies reported a measure of perceived and appraised stress while in hospital, and at least one patient outcome. A random-effects model was generated to pool correlations (Pearson's r), followed by sub-group and sensitivity analyses. The study protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237017). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies, comprising 16 effects and 1,832 patients, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included. A small-to-medium association was found: as in-hospital stress increased, patient outcomes deteriorated (r = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.12-0.26; I2 = 63.6; p < 0.001). This association was significantly stronger for (i) in-hospital versus post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective versus objective outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses indicated that our findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of psychological stress experienced by hospital inpatients are associated with poorer patient outcomes. However, more high-quality, larger scale studies are required to better understand the association between in-hospital stressors and adverse outcomes.

Critical care nursing workforce in crisis: A discussion paper examining contributing factors, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and potential solutions.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The critical care nursing workforce is in crisis, with one-third of critical care nurses worldwide intending to leave their roles. This paper aimed to examine the problem from a wellbeing perspective, offering implications for research, and potential solutions for organisations. DESIGN: Discursive/Position paper. METHOD: The discussion is based on the nursing and wellbeing literature. It is guided by the authors' collaborative expertise as both clinicians and researchers. Data were drawn from nursing and wellbeing peer-reviewed literature, such as reviews and empirical studies, national surveys and government and thinktank publications/reports. RESULTS: Critical care nurses have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with studies consistently showing critical care nurses to have the worst psychological outcomes on wellbeing measures, including depression, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These findings are not only concerning for the mental wellbeing of critical care nurses, they also raise significant issues for healthcare systems/organisations: poor wellbeing, increased burnout and PTSD are directly linked with critical care nurses intending to leave the profession. Thus, the wellbeing of critical care nurses must urgently be supported. Resilience has been identified as a protective mechanism against the development of PTSD and burnout, thus offering evidence-based interventions that address resilience and turnover have much to offer in tackling the workforce crisis. However, turnover data must be collected by studies evaluating resilience interventions, to further support their evidence base. Organisations cannot solely rely on the efficacy of these interventions to address their workforce crisis but must concomitantly engage in organisational change. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that critical care nurses are in urgent need of preventative, evidence-based wellbeing interventions, and make suggestions for research and practice.

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research. METHODS: This scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research. RESULTS: Nineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production. CONCLUSION: Researchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje .

The Association Between Health Care Staff Engagement and Patient Safety Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Despite decades of research, improving health care safety remains a global priority. Individual studies have demonstrated links between staff engagement and care quality, but until now, any relationship between engagement and patient safety outcomes has been more speculative. This systematic review and meta-analysis therefore assessed this relationship and explored if the way these variables were defined and measured had any differential effect. METHODS: After systematic searches of Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane Library, and National Institute for Health Research Journals databases, narrative and random-effects meta-analyses were completed, with pooled effect sizes expressed as Pearson r. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. Meta-analyses indicated a small but consistent, statistically significant relationship between staff engagement and patient safety (all outcomes; 11 studies; r = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07 to 0.36; n = 30,490) and 2 patient safety outcome categories: patient safety culture (7 studies; r = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.41; n = 27,857) and errors/adverse events (4 studies; r = -0.20; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.13; n = 2633). The specific approach to conceptualizing engagement did not affect the strength of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review to demonstrate a significant relationship between engagement and both safety culture scores and errors/adverse events. Despite a limited and evolving evidence base, we cautiously conclude that increasing staff engagement could be an effective means of enhancing patient safety. Further research is needed to determine causality and clarify the nature of the staff engagement/patient safety relationship at individual and unit/workgroup levels.

Can we prepare healthcare professionals and students for involvement in stressful healthcare events? A mixed-methods evaluation of a resilience training intervention.

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. ß = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08-2.79, d = 1.55, p < .001), T3 (unadj. ß = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42-3.21, d = 1.71, p < .001) and T4 (unadj. ß = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31-3.19, d = 1.52, p < .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. ß = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.46, d = 0.86, p < .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. ß = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82-3.73, d = 0.90, p < .001 and T4 unadj. ß = 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.

Preoperative Interventions for Alcohol and Other Recreational Substance Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Preoperative alcohol and other recreational substance use (ORSU) may catalyze perioperative complications. Accordingly, interventions aiming to reduce preoperative substance use are warranted. Methods: Studies investigating interventions to reduce alcohol and/or ORSU in elective surgery patients were identified from: Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; PSYCINFO; EMBASE; and CINAHL. In both narrative summaries of results and random effects meta-analyses, effects of interventions on perioperative alcohol/ORSU, complications, mortality and length of stay were assessed. Primary Results: Nine studies (n = 903) were included. Seven used behavioral interventions only, two provided disulfiram in addition. Pooled analyses found small effects on alcohol use (d: 0.34; 0.05-0.64), though two trials using disulfiram (0.71; 0.36-1.07) were superior to two using behavioral interventions (0.45; -0.49-1.39). No significant pooled effects were found for perioperative complications, length of hospital stay or mortality in studies solely targeting alcohol/ORSU. Too few interventions targeting ORSU (n = 1) were located to form conclusions regarding their efficacy. Studies were generally at high risk-of-bias and heterogeneous. Conclusions: Preoperative interventions were beneficial in reducing substance use in some instances, but more high-quality studies targeting alcohol/ORSU specifically are needed. The literature to date does not suggest that such interventions can reduce postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay or mortality. Limitations in the literature are outlined and recommendations for future studies are suggested.

How Can Smoking Cessation Be Induced Before Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Behavior Change Techniques and Other Intervention Characteristics.

Background: Smokers who continue to smoke up to the point of surgery are at increased risk of a range of complications during and following surgery. Objective: To identify whether behavioral and/or pharmacological interventions increase the likelihood that smokers quit prior to elective surgery and which intervention components are associated with larger effects. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Embase Classic, CINAHL, CENTRAL. Study selection: Studies testing the effect of smoking reduction interventions delivered at least 24 h before elective surgery were included. Study appraisal and synthesis: Potential studies were independently screened by two people. Data relating to study characteristics and risk of bias were extracted. The effects of the interventions on pre-operative smoking abstinence were estimated using random effects meta-analyses. The association between specific intervention components (behavior change techniques; mode; duration; number of sessions; interventionist) and smoking cessation effect sizes were estimated using meta-regressions. Results: Twenty-two studies comprising 2,992 smokers were included and 19 studies were meta-analyzed. Interventions increased the proportion of smokers who were abstinent or reduced smoking by surgery relative to control: g = 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.80, with rates nearly double in the intervention (46.2%) relative to the control (24.5%). Interventions that comprised more sessions, delivered face-to-face and by nurses, as well as specific behavior change techniques (providing information on consequence of smoking/cessation; providing information on withdrawal symptoms; goal setting; review of goals; regular monitoring by others; and giving options for additional or later support) were associated with larger effects. Conclusion: Rates of smoking can be halved prior to surgery and a number of intervention characteristics can increase these effects. There was, however, some indication of publication bias meaning the benefits of such interventions may be smaller than estimated. Registration: Prospero 2015: CRD42015024733.