Effectiveness of interventions on occupational stress, health and well-being, performance, and job satisfaction for midwives: A systematic mixed methods review.

BACKGROUND: Work-related stress is high in midwifery with negative implications for midwives' health and performance. This systematic review therefore examined which stress management interventions (SMIs) are most effective at reducing occupational stress and improving midwives' health and well-being, performance, and job satisfaction. METHODS: A systematic review included studies if they were: investigating midwives or student midwives; examining an individual- or organisation-level intervention; reporting the intervention effects on at least one outcome (e.g., job performance); peer-reviewed; and published in English. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted and data were presented by SMI level (i.e., individual vs. organisation) and modality type (e.g., mindfulness, care model). Sum codes were used to compare the effects of individual- and organisation-level SMIs on outcomes. FINDINGS: From 2605 studies identified, 30 were eligible (18 individual- and 12 organisation-level SMIs). Eight studies were deemed low quality. While individual- and organisation-level SMIs were equally effective in improving job satisfaction and performance, there was a trend for organisation-level SMIs more effectively reducing work stress and improving health and well-being. Specific individual- (i.e., mindfulness, simulation training) and organisation-level (i.e., reflective groups, midwifery care models) SMIs were most beneficial. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that health practitioners and policy makers implement interventions that target both individual- and organisation-levels to optimally support midwives' work stress, health, well-being, and performance. Notwithstanding these findings and implications, some studies had poor methodological quality; thus, future research should better follow intervention reporting guidelines.

Challenges and enablers to implementation of the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS) was set up to recruit 26 000 additional staff into general practice by 2024, with the aim of increasing patient access to appointments. Despite the potential benefits of integrating ARRS practitioners into primary care, their implementation has not always been straightforward. AIM: To explore the challenges and enablers to implementation of the ARRS including its impact on primary and secondary care systems. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study with ARRS healthcare professionals and key professional stakeholders involved in staff education or scheme implementation across three integrated care systems in England. METHOD: Participants (n = 37) were interviewed using semi-structured individual or paired interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using framework analysis until data saturation occurred. RESULTS: Using framework analysis, 10 categories were identified. Three were categorised as successes: staff valued but their impact unclear; multiple and certain roles maximise impact; and training hub support. Seven were categorised as challenges: scheme inflexibility; creating a sustainable workforce with career progression; managing scope and expectations; navigating supervision and roadmap progression; infrastructure and integration challenges; ARRS roles impact on wider systems; and tensions and perspectives of existing staff. CONCLUSION: Most ARRS staff felt valued, but the scheme broadened expertise available in primary care rather than reducing GP burden, which was originally anticipated. Some PCNs, especially those in areas of high deprivation, found it difficult to meet the population's needs as a result of the scheme's inflexibility, potentially leading to greater health inequalities in primary care. Recommendations are proposed to optimise the effective implementation of the primary care workforce model. Further research is required to explore administrative role solutions, further understand the impact of health inequalities, and investigate the wellbeing of ARRS staff.

The impact of remote consultations on the health and wellbeing of first contact physiotherapists in primary care: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: First Contact Physiotherapists (FCPs) were introduced to reduce demands on GPs by providing improving access to expert musculoskeletal care. FCPs experience similar workplace stressors to GPs and there is an emerging concern that remote consultations are causing further impacts to their wellbeing. AIM: To explore the impact of remote consultations on FCPs. METHODS: A mixed methods sequential explanatory study with FCPs was conducted. An online survey measured the usage and impact of remote consultations. Semi-structured interviews explored the lived experiences of using remote consultations. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 109 FCPs. A key benefit of remote consultations was patient convenience; perceived challenges included IT issues, poor efficacy, FCP anxiety, isolation, and increased workload. FCPs viewed remote consultations as a 'challenge' rather than a 'threat'. Nearly two thirds of the FCPs had not received relevant training, yet over half were interested. Follow-up interviews with 16 FCPs revealed 4 themes: (1) Remote consultations provide logistical benefits to the patient; (2) Compromised efficacy is the key challenge of remote consultations; (3) Challenges for FCPs working in areas of high deprivation; and (4) Remote consultations impact the health, wellbeing and work satisfaction of FCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Remote consultations offer a convenient alternative for patients, but may add to FCP stress particularly in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. Further research is required to understand how remote consultations can be enhanced when communication barriers and lower levels of digital literacy exist. Continued monitoring of job satisfaction and resilience levels is important to ensure FCPs remain in their role.