Search

Background: Global workforce challenges faced by health care providers are linked to low levels of job satisfaction, recruitment, retention, and well-being, with detrimental impacts on patient care outcomes. Resilience-building programs can provide support for staff who endure highly stressful environments, enhance resilience, and support recruitment and retention, with web-based formats being key to increasing accessibility., Objective: We aimed to examine participants' engagement with a newly developed Resilience Enhancement Online Training for Nurses (REsOluTioN), explore its acceptability, and compare levels of resilience and psychological well-being in nurses who completed REsOluTioN with those who did not., Methods: We carried out a pilot randomized trial (1:1), conducted at a single site (mental health and community trust in South England) between August 2021 and May 2022. Local research ethics approvals were obtained. Nurses were invited to participate and were randomly assigned to a waitlist group or REsOluTioN group. Training lasted for 4 weeks, consisting of prereading, web-based facilitated sessions, and mentorship support. We evaluated trial engagement, acceptability of training, and pre-post changes in resilience, measured by the Brief Resilience Scale, and psychological well-being, measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. Qualitative participant feedback was collected. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 extension guidelines for reporting pilot and feasibility trials were used., Results: Of 108 participants recruited, 93 completed the study. Participants' mean age was 44 (SD 10.85) years. Most participants were female (n=95, 88.8%), White (n=95, 88.8%), and worked in community settings (n=91, 85.0%). Sixteen facilitated and 150 mentoring sessions took place. Most REsOluTioN program participants reported the sessions helped improve their resilience (n=24, 72.8%), self-confidence (n=24, 72.7%), ability to provide good patient care (n=25, 75.8%), relationships with colleagues (n=24, 72.7%), and communication skills (n=25, 75.8%). No statistically significant differences between training and control groups and time on well-being (F 1,91 =1.44, P=.23, partial η 2 =0.02) and resilience scores (F 1,91 =0.33, P=.57, partial η 2 =0.004) were revealed; however, there were positive trends toward improvement in both. Nurse participants engaged with the REsOluTioN program and found it acceptable. Most found web-based training and mentoring useful and enjoyed learning, reflection, networking, and participatory sessions., Conclusions: The REsOluTioN program was acceptable, engaging, perceived as useful, and nurses were keen for it to be implemented to optimize resilience, psychological health, communication, and workplace environments. The study has evidenced that it is acceptable to implement web-based resilience programs with similar design features within busy health care settings, indicating a need for similar programs to be carefully evaluated. Mentorship support may also be a key in optimizing resilience. Trial limitations include small sample size and reduced statistical power; a multicenter randomized controlled trial could test effectiveness of the training on a larger scale., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05074563; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05074563., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.2196/37015., (©Catherine Henshall, Zoe Davey, Cynthia Srikesavan, Liam Hart, Dan Butcher, Andrea Cipriani. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.02.2023.)

Objectives: The study aim was to explore experiences of patients with pleural mesothelioma of follow-up care in three National Health Service (NHS) Trusts to develop recommendations for practice., Design: The study design was qualitative and comprised three interlinked phases: a documentary analysis, interviews and consultation meetings. Altheide and Johnson's Analytic Realism theoretical framework guided the thematic data analysis process., Setting: The study was conducted in three NHS Trusts in South England. Two were secondary care settings and the third was a tertiary centre., Participants: The secondary care trusts saw 15-20 patients with new mesothelioma per year and the tertiary centre 30-40. The tertiary centre had a designated mesothelioma team. Twenty-one patients met the inclusion criteria: >18 years, mesothelioma diagnosis and in follow-up care. Non-English speaking participants, those unable to provide written informed consent or those whom the clinical team felt would find participation too distressing were excluded. All participants were white, 71% were 70-79 years old and 71% were men. Three consultation meetings were conducted with key stakeholders including mesothelioma nurse specialists, patients with mesothelioma, carers and local clinical commissioning group members., Main Outcome Measures: Specific outcomes were to gain a detailed understanding of mesothelioma follow-up care pathways and processes and to develop coproduced recommendations for practice., Results: Mesothelioma pathways were not always distinct from lung cancer care pathways. All trusts provided follow-up information and resources but there was varied information on how to access local support groups, research or clinical trial participation. Five themes were developed relating to people; processes; places; purpose and perception of care. Coproduced recommendations for improving mesothelioma follow-up pathways were developed following the consultation meetings., Conclusions: This study has developed recommendations which identify the need for patients with pleural mesothelioma to access consistent, specialist, streamlined mesothelioma care, centred around specialist mesothelioma nurses and respiratory consultants, with input from the wider multidisciplinary team., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HB is part funded by Mesothelioma UK as a mesothelioma nurse specialist., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)