The impact of shared social spaces on the wellness and learning of junior doctors: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Impaired wellness among junior doctors is a significant problem. Connectedness and sense of belonging may be important factors to prevent and reduce mental ill-health. Shared social spaces in which health care staff can meet informally are thought to improve connectedness; however, these spaces are in decline. It is unclear what is known about such spaces, how they are used, and their impact on wellness and learning. This study aims to identify and synthetise available literature that informs our current understanding of the nature of shared social spaces as an intervention impacting wellness and learning of junior doctors. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley five-step framework. The review question is 'What is the evidence of the impact of shared social spaces on wellness and learning of junior doctors?' We searched five databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsychINFO, APA PsychExtra, and ERIC. We conducted thorough supplementary searches in addition to the database search. RESULTS: We included 41 articles. These were predominantly letters, commentaries, and editorials with only five primary research studies. We identified four significant common attributes of shared social spaces, which can be credited with positive impacts on wellness and learning: (1) Informal: fostering connectedness and belonging, trust and teamwork and offering access to informal help and support; (2) safe: allowing reflection, debrief and raising of concerns; (3) functional: there is planning of clinical care activity, sense of control and engagement from users and provision of refreshment; (4) legitimate: regular maintenance and use of shared social spaces affect role modelling, sustainability and wellness culture. DISCUSSION: This review identified several ways in which shared social spaces impact positively on learning and wellness. There is little primary research in this area. Future research would be useful to further examine how and why this works.

A systematic review on robotic coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has been performed over the past decade. Despite encouraging results from selected centres, there is a paucity of robust clinical data to establish its clinical safety and efficacy. The present systematic review aimed to identify all relevant clinical data on robotic CABG. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality, and secondary endpoints included perioperative morbidities, anastomotic complications, and long-term survival. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using three online databases from their dates of inception to 2016. Relevant studies fulfilling the predefined search criteria were categorized according to surgical techniques as (I) totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass without cardiopulmonary bypass (TECAB off-pump); (II) TECAB on-pump; and robotic-assisted mammary artery harvesting followed by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (robotic MIDCAB). RESULTS: The present systematic review identified 44 studies that fulfilled the study selection criteria, including nine studies in the TECAB off-pump group and 16 studies in the robotic MIDCAB group. Statistical analysis reported a pooled mortality of 1.7% for the TECAB off-pump group and 1.0% for the robotic MIDCAB group. Intraoperative details such as the number and location of grafts performed, operative times and conversion rates, as well as postoperative secondary endpoints such as morbidities, anastomotic complications and long-term outcomes were also summarized for both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: A number of technical, logistic and cost-related issues continue to hinder the popularization of the robotic CABG procedure. Current clinical evidence is limited by a lack of randomized controlled trials, heterogeneous definition of techniques and complications, as well as a lack of robust clinical follow-up with routine angiography. Nonetheless, the present systematic review reported acceptable perioperative mortality rates for selected patients at specialized centres. These results should be considered as a useful benchmark for future studies, until further data is reported in the form of randomized trials.