Search

Abstract Background Timely dispatch of appropriate emergency medical services (EMS) resources to the scene of medical incidents, and/or provision of treatment at the scene by bystanders and medical emergency lay callers (referred to as ‘callers’ in this review) can improve patient outcomes. Currently, in dispatch systems worldwide, prioritisation of dispatch relies mostly on verbal telephone information from callers, but advances in mobile phone technology provide means for sharing video footage. This scoping review aimed to map and identify current uses, opportunities, and challenges for using video livestreaming from callers’ smartphones to emergency medical dispatch centres. Methods A scoping review of relevant published literature between 2007 and 2023 in the English language, searched within MEDLINE; CINAHL and PsycINFO, was descriptively synthesised, adhering to the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Results Twenty-four articles remained from the initial search of 1,565 articles. Most studies were simulation-based and focused on emergency medical dispatchers’ (referred to as ‘dispatcher/s’ in this review) assisted video cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), predominantly concerned with measuring how video impacts CPR performance. Nine studies were based on real-life practice. Few studies specifically explored experiences of dispatchers or callers. Only three articles explored the impact that using video had on the dispatch of resources. Opportunities offered by video livestreaming included it being: perceived to be useful; easy to use; reassuring for both dispatchers and callers; and informing dispatcher decision-making. Challenges included the potential emotional impact for dispatchers and callers. There were also concerns about potential misuse of video, although there was no evidence that this was occurring. Evidence suggests a need for appropriate training of dispatchers and video-specific dispatch protocols. Conclusion Research is sparse in the context of video livestreaming. Few studies have focussed on the use of video livestreaming outside CPR provision, such as for trauma incidents, which are by their nature time-critical where visual information may offer significant benefit. Further investigation into acceptability and experience of the use of video livestreaming is warranted, to understand the potential psychological impact on dispatchers and callers.

Background Unprofessional behaviour in healthcare systems can negatively impact staff well-being, patient safety and organisational costs. Unprofessional behaviour encompasses a range of behaviours, including incivility, microaggressions, harassment and bullying. Despite efforts to combat unprofessional behaviour in healthcare settings, it remains prevalent. Interventions to reduce unprofessional behaviour in health care have been conducted – but how and why they may work is unclear. Given the complexity of the issue, a realist review methodology is an ideal approach to examining unprofessional behaviour in healthcare systems. Aim To improve context-specific understanding of how, why and in what circumstances unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute healthcare settings occur and evidence of strategies implemented to mitigate, manage and prevent them. Methods Realist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards reporting guidelines. Data sources Literature sources for building initial theories were identified from the original proposal and from informal searches of various websites. For theory refinement, we conducted systematic and purposive searches for peer-reviewed literature on databases such as EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and MEDLINE databases as well as for grey literature. Searches were conducted iteratively from November 2021 to December 2022. Results Initial theory-building drew on 38 sources. Searches resulted in 2878 titles and abstracts. In total, 148 sources were included in the review. Terminology and definitions used for unprofessional behaviours were inconsistent. This may present issues for policy and practice when trying to identify and address unprofessional behaviour. Contributors of unprofessional behaviour can be categorised into four areas: (1) workplace disempowerment, (2) organisational uncertainty, confusion and stress, (3) (lack of) social cohesion and (4) enablement of harmful cultures that tolerate unprofessional behaviours. Those at most risk of experiencing unprofessional behaviour are staff from a minoritised background. We identified 42 interventions in the literature to address unprofessional behaviour. These spanned five types: (1) single session (i.e. one-off), (2) multiple sessions, (3) single or multiple sessions combined with other actions (e.g. training session plus a code of conduct), (4) professional accountability and reporting interventions and (5) structured culture-change interventions. We identified 42 reports of interventions, with none conducted in the United Kingdom. Of these, 29 interventions were evaluated, with the majority (n = 23) reporting some measure of effectiveness. Interventions drew on 13 types of behaviour-change strategy designed to, for example: change social norms, improve awareness of unprofessional behaviour, or redesign the workplace. Interventions were impacted by 12 key dynamics, including focusing on individuals, lack of trust in management and non-existent logic models. Conclusions Workplace disempowerment and organisational barriers are primary contributors to unprofessional behaviour. However, interventions predominantly focus on individual education or training without addressing systemic, organisational issues. Effectiveness of interventions to improve staff well-being or patient safety is uncertain. We provide 12 key dynamics and 15 implementation principles to guide organisations. Future work Interventions need to: (1) be tested in a United Kingdom context, (2) draw on behavioural science principles and (3) target systemic, organisational issues. Limitations This review focuses on interpersonal staff-to-staff unprofessional behaviour, in acute healthcare settings only and does not include non-intervention literature outside the United Kingdom or outside of health care. Study registration This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO CRD42021255490. The record is available from: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131606) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary For this study, we asked: how, why and in what situations can unprofessional behaviour between healthcare staff working in acute care (usually hospitals) be reduced, managed and prevented? We wanted to research how people understand unprofessional behaviour, explore the circumstances leading to unprofessional behaviour and understand how existing approaches to addressing unprofessional behaviour worked (or did not work) across staff groups and acute healthcare organisations. We used a literature review method called a ‘realist review’, which differs from other review methods. A realist review focuses on understanding not only if interventions work but how and why they work, and for whom. This allowed us to analyse a wider range of relevant international literature – not only academic papers. We found 148 sources, which were relevant either because they described unprofessional behaviour or because they provided information on how to address unprofessional behaviour. Definitions of unprofessional behaviour varied, making it difficult to settle on one description. For example, unprofessional behaviour may involve incivility, bullying, harassment and/or microaggressions. We examined what might contribute to unprofessional behaviour and identified factors including uncertainty in the working environment. We found no United Kingdom-based interventions and only one from the United States of America that sought to reduce unprofessional behaviour towards minority groups. Strategies often tried to encourage staff to speak up, provide ways to report unprofessional behaviour or set social standards of behaviour. We also identified factors that may make it challenging for organisations to successfully select, implement and evaluate an intervention to address unprofessional behaviour. We recommend a system-wide approach to addressing unprofessional behaviour, including assessing the context and then implementing multiple approaches over a long time (rather than just once), because they are likely to have greater impact on changing culture. We are producing an implementation guide to support this process. Interventions need to enhance staff ability to feel safe at work, work effectively and support those more likely to experience unprofessional behaviour. Scientific summary Background Unprofessional behaviour (UB) in healthcare systems can have significant negative impact on staff well-being, patient safety and organisational costs. UB encompasses a range of behaviours – such as incivility, microaggressions, harassment and bullying – that remain prevalent in healthcare systems around the world. In 2022, Workforce Race Equality Standard data indicated that the percentage of staff experiencing UB from colleagues in the National Health Service (NHS) was 22.5% for white respondents and 27.6% for ethnic minority respondents. Unprofessional behaviour can impact negatively on the psychological well-being of both targets and witnesses. This may result in higher rates of staff sick leave and turnover. Conservative estimates suggest that damages from bullying alone cost the NHS approximately £2.28 billion per annum. The negative impacts of UB also extend to patient safety, which can be compromised if staff members who are victims of UB are unable to speak up – leading to medical errors and poor patient outcomes. Managing, mitigating and preventing UB can assist in addressing the increasing workforce crisis in health care and declining rates of patient satisfaction, as well as improve patient outcomes. Extant literature has focused predominantly on bullying. Literature exploring the implementation and effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce UB is often underpinned by the belief that the more people know about UB – including how to recognise and challenge it – the more likely it is to be reduced. However, this is very challenging to do and places the responsibility on individuals. Interventions to reduce UB in health care may need to be tailored to specific contexts and may need to go beyond increasing awareness and assertiveness to address deeper systemic issues. This is a complex, widespread and urgent issue that is heavily reliant on context and has negative impact on staff well-being, patient safety and organisational costs. A realist review methodology may be an ideal method for examining the interacting components of UB between staff in acute healthcare settings. Objectives This review aimed to: Conceptualise and refine terminology, by mapping behaviours defined as unprofessional to understand differences and similarities between terms referring to UB (e.g. incivility, bullying, microaggressions) and how these terms are used by different professional groups in acute healthcare settings. Develop and refine context, mechanism and outcome configurations (CMOCs), to understand the causes and contexts of UB, the mechanisms that trigger different behaviours, and the outcomes on staff, patients and the wider system of health care. Identify strategies designed to mitigate, manage and prevent UB and explore how, why and in what circumstances these work and whom they benefit. Produce recommendations and comprehensive resources that support the tailoring, UB and their impacts. Methods Realist reviews seek to understand why an intervention may work in one context but not another. This involves building an understanding of how various contextual factors affect the activation of mechanisms (i.e. changes in participant reasoning) to produce various outcomes. Often these relationships are not well articulated in the literature, so realist research draws on retroductive reasoning to unpack this information, drawing on ‘hunches’ as well as inductive and deductive reasoning to ask, ‘why do things appear as they do?’. The aim of this is to build CMOCs that underpin programme theories and to build an understanding of how contributors drive UB and how different strategies may be used in different contexts to address UB. Realist reviews also enable grey literature to be drawn upon. Our review had six main stages: Formulating initial programme theories drawing on informal literature searches of NHS England, The King’s Fund, British Medical Association, Health and Care Professions Council and NHS Employers websites, as well as literature already known to the study team and in the study protocol. This comprised 38 studies after screening for relevancy and rigour. Performing systematic and purposive searches for peer-reviewed literature on EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and MEDLINE databases as well as grey literature on Health Management Information Consortium, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Search, Patient Safety Network, Google and Google Scholar databases, and NHS Employers and NHS Health Education England websites. Searches were conducted in November 2021, then expanded to include United States of America (USA) literature in August 2022 and updated in December 2022. Selecting appropriate documents while considering rigour and relevance. The above searches identified 5967 total titles and abstracts across all databases after deduplication. We applied strict conceptual-richness criteria to include the most relevant and useful literature. Searching and screening in November 2022 resulted in 64 included sources. Additional searching in August 2022 resulted in the addition of 36 sources; the December 2022 search added a further 10 sources. This meant that 110 sources were used for theory refinement (step 2 onwards) while 38 were used in step 1 for initial theory generation, with 148 sources included in total. Extracting data using NVivo 12 software (QSR International, Warrington, UK) using a mix of inductive and deductive code creation. Key excerpts were also extracted separately into a Word document so that patterns across literature could be collated and investigated. Characteristics of included sources were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet. Synthesising data with the aid of the data categorised within NVivo, where data were coded according to UB definitions, contributors, interventions, and strategies. This enabled us to compare and contrast, reconcile, adjudicate and consolidate different sources of evidence to build an understanding of which contexts affect how interventions work, and why and how various UB contributors may work. Refining and testing initial programme theories against additional identified literature. At this stage, CMOCs and programme theories were either confirmed, refuted or added to our step 2 analysis. Stakeholder feedback was also incorporated at five points in the project through the following process: (1) record theory presentation to stakeholders for refinement, (2) record suggested alterations, (3) perform purposive searching to sense-check non-aligned suggestions, (4) discuss discrepancies within the team to determine consensus and action taken and (5) represent changes made to stakeholders/group for further sense-checking. Results Terminology We explored the use of UB-related terminology in the literature and found that forms of UB can be placed on a spectrum according to how specific they were, whether they were visible to the organisation or their targets, and whether they required a hierarchical structure to occur. We also found that there is little agreement within the literature about how to define dimensions of UB. This may cause confusion and make it challenging to synthesise the literature on this topic. In practice, the lack of a shared definition or understanding of UB could lead to difficulties in understanding its prevalence, reduce the likelihood of individuals reporting UB and hinder the effectiveness of interventions to address UB. Contributors to unprofessional behaviour We explored how UBs are developed and experienced by staff in acute healthcare settings. We were able to create a comprehensive programme theory that categorised contributors into four aspects: Workplace disempowerment: factors such as hierarchy can lead to people becoming an easier target for instigators, foster a sense of unfairness and cause a reduction in psychological safety, which can all facilitate propagation of UB. Organisational uncertainty, confusion and stress: factors such as organisational change or a lack of resources contribute to increased instances and experiences of UB. When staff are more likely to experience a lack of control in their day-to-day work, this can exacerbate pre-existing stress, create challenges in building relationships and worsen UB. Social cohesion: a lack of social cohesion among colleagues – including reduced ability to communicate effectively (e.g. due to stress and pressure as outlined above) – can lead to the undermining of social relationships between staff that would otherwise enable a greater ability to cope with and collectively address UB. Enablement of harmful cultures that tolerate UB: leadership and organisational culture can enable, model or tacitly permit UB. This can create an environment in which UB becomes part of an organisation’s fabric and the social norm. Our programme theory depicts how these contributors interact and, in so doing, identifies the many overlapping mechanisms across each area and type of UB. Outcomes of unprofessional behaviour on staff, patients and organisations Our review identified that UB is experienced more frequently by people from a minoritised background. More broadly, we also highlighted impacts on staff psychological well-being as a result of UB. Intra-professional forms of UB were found to be more harmful to well-being than interprofessional UB, perhaps due to the differing strengths of social ties within and between groups. We identified that the economic impact of UB to organisations is significant. We were able to create a programme theory regarding how the presence of UB can impact staff and thereby patient safety through various mechanisms, such as inability to communicate and loss of learning. Interventions and strategies to reduce or mitigate unprofessional behaviour We identified 42 interventions that sought to reduce UB between acute healthcare staff. The majority were developed and implemented in the USA (n = 30), with none reported from the United Kingdom (UK). The interventions included single-session or multiple-session designs, combined with other actions such as codes of conduct, professional accountability and reporting interventions and structured culture-change interventions. However, most interventions did not draw on theoretical frameworks to inform their design, report theoretical underpinnings, provide an understanding of why and how the intervention is expected to work or report any comprehensive long-term evaluation. Only one intervention targeted UB impacting minoritised groups (racism). Of the 29 studies that assessed intervention effectiveness, the majority (n = 23) reported positive results – but this depended on the outcome measures these studies chose. Interventions drawing on single-session designs were reported as less effective compared to multiple-session interventions. There was a trend towards more complex interventions reporting greater effectiveness. Interventions can have degrees of flexibility, allowing for variation as to which components or strategies participants are exposed to. However, this makes them more resource-intensive to implement and harder to evaluate. We also found (via information from our stakeholder group) that there are interventions taking place in practice that are not adequately reported in the literature, making it difficult to assess their effectiveness. Finally, we did not include interventions to improve civility or professionalism alone, which may also address some contributors to UB. The review identified 13 categories of strategies to reduce UB. These strategies included direct or indirect approaches to instigators (such as informal or disciplinary actions), improving awareness and knowledge of UB for all staff, improving teamwork, setting social norms through leadership role-modelling and code of conduct, and reporting and escalation systems. Improving leadership competence and empathy, workplace redesign and changing recruitment and dismissal processes were also identified, as were external pressures on organisations and strategies to aid implementation. Overall, the strategies highlighted the importance of addressing UB from multiple angles and levels (individual, team, organisational and societal), involving all staff and management levels, and creating a culture of respect and accountability. When do unprofessional behaviour interventions and strategies work? The study identified 12 key dynamics that can be summarised into four broad categories helping to optimise the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing UB in healthcare settings. Firstly, if interventions can focus on systemic issues such as organisational uncertainty, this is likely to be more effective than addressing problematic individuals. Secondly, seeking ways to build trust with management and other senior staff members is crucial. This relies on interventions being seen as authentic and leaders being role models. Thirdly, interventions need to be focused on an identified target audience and ensure they are both inclusive and fair. Lastly, there are trade-offs in intervention design that must be considered – that is, whether to build interventions in a theory-based or practice-first manner or to focus on effectiveness or ability to evaluate. For example, interventions encouraging bystanders to intervene are important for culture change but may lead to moral injury if individuals do not feel capable of intervening. Findings also emphasised the importance of maintaining a focus on why reducing UB is important (to improve patient safety and staff psychological well-being), encouraging triage of messages in systems that enable anonymous reporting and comprehensive evaluation of interventions to better understand what works, where and why. We identified a further 15 key implementation principles that may help the effectiveness, sustainability and perception of UB interventions in healthcare organisations. Examples include: covering a broad section of the organisation, co-creation with staff, dedicated staff to lead the work, skilled facilitation, multiple strategies, ongoing evaluation, maximising visibility, assessing the organisational landscape before implementation, early intervention, maximising existing opportunities such as onboarding processes to establish social norms during induction, manager engagement, cultivating perceptions of justice, avoiding mixing of hierarchies in session-based interventions, and avoiding simply moving the target or instigator of UB. Conclusions Unprofessional behaviour is a pervasive issue currently poorly addressed by existing interventions. We identified many contributors to UB, most of which relate to worker disempowerment and organisational barriers. However, most existing interventions do not address these systemic, organisational contributors to UB, instead relying on education or training workshops to boost individual knowledge or awareness, identify problematic individuals or improve UB targets’ ability to speak up. Such approaches may reduce UB prevalence; however, it is unclear whether this has lasting positive impact or improves staff psychological well-being and patient safety. Future interventions would benefit from being designed and tested in UK settings, drawing on contemporary behavioural science principles to help inform their design, and focusing on systemic issues within organisations. We provide 12 key dynamics and 15 implementation principles to guide organisations. Study registration This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO CRD42021255490. The record is available from: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131606) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Background To improve patients’ privacy, comfort and infection control, newly built hospitals increasingly offer 100% single-occupancy patient rooms. Our study examines how nurses perceived the transition from a hospital with multi-bedded patient rooms to one with solely single-occupancy patient rooms designed according to principles of a healing environment. Methods In a single-centre, before-after survey study, nurses completed a questionnaire of 21 items in three domains: perceived patient safety and monitoring, nurses’ working conditions and patient environment. Before-measurements (n = 217) were compared with two after-measurements in the new hospital, respectively after one (n = 483) and two years (n = 191). Results Nurses considered the single rooms in the new hospital worse for visibility and monitoring but this had improved somewhat after two years. In either setting, the majority perceived working conditions (walking distances and designated rest area) as unfavourable. The patient environment in the new hospital was generally perceived as much better than in the former hospital. Conclusion The transition to solely single-occupancy patient rooms was largely considered positive by nurses in terms of patient environment. However, monitoring of patients and working conditions remain a concern. When designing new hospitals, attention should be paid to optimal working conditions for nurses. To improve monitoring of patients, we recommend the use of remote-sensoring.

Unprofessional behaviours (UBs) between healthcare staff are widespread and have negative impacts on patient safety, staff well-being and organisational efficiency. However, knowledge of how to address UBs is lacking. Our recent realist review analysed 148 sources including 42 reports of interventions drawing on different behaviour change strategies and found that interventions insufficiently explain their rationale for using particular strategies. We also explored the drivers of UBs and how these may interact. In our analysis, we elucidated both common mechanisms underlying both how drivers increase UB and how strategies address UB, enabling the mapping of strategies against drivers they address. For example, social norm-setting strategies work by fostering a more professional social norm, which can help tackle the driver 'reduced social cohesion'. Our novel programme theory, presented here, provides an increased understanding of what strategies might be effective to adddress specific drivers of UB. This can inform logic model design for those seeking to develop interventions addressing UB in healthcare settings.

Background: There is a global shortage of nurses and new strategies are required to recruit, support and retain this staff group. Organisational culture can have a significant impact on staff wellbeing and commitment. Recent years have seen attempts to foster a compassionate culture across healthcare systems. However, little is known about how nurses initiate self-care and how they feel cared for by their organisation, particularly in times of acute stress and need. Aims: This paper aims to address the research question, ‘In what ways do nurses experience compassion (or not) during times of acute stress?’, identifying where and how compassionate acts were enacted by individuals, within teams or organisations. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 50 UK National Health Service (NHS) nurses in a longitudinal qualitative study (between March 2020 and September 2022). Results: Three themes were derived from our narrative analysis including: (1) Learning and practising self-compassion; (2) The presence and absence of interpersonal compassion; and (3) Organisational (non) compassionate acts. Findings indicate that self-compassion requires permission and discipline, often being unfamiliar terrain for nurses. Interpersonal compassion can buoy nurses during challenging times but can often be absent across teams. Nurses’ experiences of organisational acts of compassion were limited, and they often felt de-valued, unsupported and replaceable. Conclusions: Compassionate acts are enacted across three levels (self, team and organisation). To retain staff, particularly in acutely stressful or challenging situations, organisations, and those responsible for nursing management and policy need to foster a systems-based approach to compassionate culture.

Abstract Background Unprofessional behaviours (UB) between healthcare staff are rife in global healthcare systems, negatively impacting staff wellbeing, patient safety and care quality. Drivers of UBs include organisational, situational, team, and leadership issues which interact in complex ways. An improved understanding of these factors and their interactions would enable future interventions to better target these drivers of UB. Methods A realist review following RAMESES guidelines was undertaken with stakeholder input. Initial theories were formulated drawing on reports known to the study team and scoping searches. A systematic search of databases including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE and HMIC was performed to identify literature for theory refinement. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. Results We included 81 reports (papers) from 2,977 deduplicated records of grey and academic reports, and 28 via Google, stakeholders, and team members, yielding a total of 109 reports. Five categories of contributor were formulated: (1) workplace disempowerment; (2) harmful workplace processes and cultures; (3) inhibited social cohesion; (4) reduced ability to speak up; and (5) lack of manager awareness and urgency. These resulted in direct increases to UB, reduced ability of staff to cope, and reduced ability to report, challenge or address UB. Twenty-three theories were developed to explain how these contributors work and interact, and how their outcomes differ across diverse staff groups. Staff most at risk of UB include women, new staff, staff with disabilities, and staff from minoritised groups. UB negatively impacted patient safety by impairing concentration, communication, ability to learn, confidence, and interpersonal trust. Conclusion Existing research has focused primarily on individual characteristics, but these are inconsistent, difficult to address, and can be used to deflect organisational responsibility. We present a comprehensive programme theory furthering understanding of contributors to UB, how they work and why, how they interact, whom they affect, and how patient safety is impacted. More research is needed to understand how and why minoritised staff are disproportionately affected by UB. Study registration This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .

Background Nurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill-health. Existing literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves. Aim To improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in these professions. Methods Realist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards’ reporting guidelines. Data sources First round database searching in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), was undertaken between February and March 2021, followed by supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching, expert solicitation of key papers). Reverse chronology screening was applied, aimed at retaining 30 relevant papers in each profession. Round two database searches (December 2021) targeted COVID-19-specific literature and literature reviews. No date limits were applied. Results We built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. Through the realist synthesis we surfaced 14 key tensions in the literature and identified five key findings, supported by 26 context mechanism and outcome configurations. The key findings identified the following: (1) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; (2) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (3) the needs of the system often override staff well-being at work (‘serve and sacrifice’); (4) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors. Conclusions Our realist synthesis strongly suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Healthcare organisations need to (1) rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive; (2) invest in multi-level system approaches to promote staff psychological well-being; and use an organisational diagnostic framework, such as the NHS England and NHS Improvement Health and Wellbeing framework, to self-assess and implement a systems approach to staff well-being. Future work Future research should implement, refine and evaluate systemic interventional strategies. Interventions and evaluations should be co-designed with front-line staff and staff experts by experience, and tailored where possible to local, organisational and workforce needs. Limitations The literature was not equivalent in size and quality across the three professions and we did not carry out citation searches using hand searching and stakeholder/expert suggestions to augment our sample. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020172420. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129528) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary The National Health Service needs healthy, motivated staff to provide high-quality patient care. Nurses, midwives and paramedics experience poor psychological health (e.g. stress/anxiety) because of pressured environments and the difficulties of healthcare work. This study planned to better understand the causes of poor psychological ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics and find which interventions might help and why. We analysed the literature using a method called ‘realist review’ to understand how interventions work (or not), why, and for who. We tested our findings with patients, the public, nurses, midwives and paramedics in our stakeholder group. We reviewed over 200 papers/reports and identified five main findings: (1) existing solutions (interventions) are disjointed, focus mainly on the individual (not the system) and do not recognise enduring stressors enough; (2) when there is a blame culture it is difficult to encourage staff psychological well-being; (3) the needs of the system often override staff psychological well-being at work; (4) upholding and implementing personal and professional values at work can have negative personal costs; and (5) it is difficult to design, identify and implement solutions that work well for staff groups in different circumstances with varied causes of poor psychological health. Healthcare organisations should consider: (1) changing (rebalancing) the working environment to help healthcare professionals rest, recover and thrive; (2) investing in multiple-level system (not just individual) approaches to staff psychological well-being; (3) continuing to reduce stigma; (4) ensuring the essential needs of staff are prioritised (rest-breaks/hydration/hot food) as building blocks for other solutions; (5) addressing the blame culture, assuming staff are doing their best in difficult conditions; (6) prioritising staff needs, as well as patient needs. We will provide guidance and recommendations to policy-makers and organisational leaders to improve work cultures that tackle psychological ill-health and suggest new areas for research. Scientific summary Background The National Health Service (NHS) is the biggest employer in Europe and the world’s largest employer of highly skilled professionals with 1.6 million people. The NHS needs healthy, motivated staff to provide high-quality patient care; however, in recent years increasing workload, due to societal demand for healthcare services, combined with increasing external scrutiny of their work, has been associated with a high prevalence of psychological ill-health amongst staff. Due to budget constraints and staff shortages, pressure is building in the health and care system and this is taking its toll on staff and patients. In 2018, commentators described staff as ‘running on empty’ and the COVID-19 pandemic has only added to these pressures. The 2021 NHS staff survey reports that 47% of staff felt unwell because of work-related stress in the last 12 months, 55% went into work despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties in the last 3 months, 77% often felt they had unrealistic time pressures, 73% felt there were not enough staff to enable them to do their job properly and only 68% were happy with the standard of care provided by their organisation. Nurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the NHS, comprising 29.3% of the NHS workforce and over 56% of the clinical workforce. Although there is a large body of literature on interventions that offer prevention, support or treatment to nurses, midwives and paramedics experiencing poor psychological health, this literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves. There is a need for research that is sensitive to the complexities of psychological ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics and provides an understanding of the causes of poor psychological health in these three groups, thus identifying what is unique to each group or setting. Through this understanding, we will be able to design context-sensitive interventions that are more likely to address the pressing workforce problems faced by the NHS. Aims The overall aim of this research was to improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics. Our specific aims were to (A1) understand when and why nurses, midwives, and paramedics develop psychological ill-health at work and provide examples of where and how it is most experienced; (A2) identify which strategies/interventions to reduce psychological ill-health work best for these staff groups, find out how they work and in what circumstances these are most helpful; (A3) design and develop resources for NHS managers/leaders so that they can understand how work affects the psychological health of nurses, midwives and paramedics; and what they can do to improve their psychological health in the workplace. Methods A realist synthesis methodology based on the realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards’ reporting guidelines was adopted to search, identify, appraise and synthesise the literature (including primary and secondary empirical research, as well as editorials, theoretical and discussion papers, and key reports) to reach an ontologically deep understanding of causes and interventions to mitigate psychological ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics. A stakeholder group supported the project, meeting four times over the course of the project to confirm that our developing analysis was resonating with stakeholders and to make suggestions regarding important areas for improving understanding. The realist approach allowed us to synthesise evidence on organisational and structural contexts (e.g. community or hospital work) and profession-specific working practices (e.g. types of shift work, team or lone-working) within each of these three professional groups, but also differences and similarities between the groups (e.g. by specialty, setting). By illuminating differences in organisational factors, context and working practices (service architecture), we anticipated how these might influence the development of psychological ill-health and the uptake and success or otherwise of interventions aimed at supporting psychological wellness within and between these staff groups. This feature of the approach is particularly appealing because the causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health are complex and multifactorial. Due to the broad mandate, and the potential for locating insights across a diversity of literature in nursing, midwifery and paramedic professions, in February–March 2021, we undertook a broad first round of database searching using Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), followed by more specific supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching journals, expert solicitation of key papers). Subsequent database searches in December 2021 targeted COVID-19-specific literature, as well as literature reviews, to supplement that found in the first database search. We used reverse chronology quota screening to include a manageable, recent set of papers relating to each profession, and excluded literature focussing on physical health, students and patient well-being. All included papers were read multiple times and we extracted key information, including causes and interventions. We used an appraisal journaling technique to enable the multidisciplinary team to extract key insights, built on existing knowledge of the research literature and the NHS, and use these insights to formulate context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs). Multiple rounds of analysis in consultation with stakeholders allowed us to crystallise the key findings, and generate insights into the tensions facing nurses, midwives and paramedics, as well as a range of interventions that might support their workplace psychological ill-health and wellness. Results We built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. We found that overall there are more similarities than differences in causes of psychological ill-health among nurses, midwives and paramedics; and very few interventions were profession-specific. Some causes may be more prevalent or exacerbated in certain professions, or roles within professions (rather than being profession-specific). In most cases it is the service architecture (organisational factors, context and working practices), that can increase risk rather than the profession itself. Our findings suggest that staff come into health care with high ideals, strong values and the desire to do a good job every day, yet many develop psychological ill-health as a result of their work. Through the realist synthesis and by surfacing 14 key tensions in the literature, we identified five key findings, supported by 26 CMOcs. The key findings (and 14 key tensions) were as follows: Interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors, with tensions between the below: T1: a focus on individuals versus a focus on systemic issues T2: a focus on acute episodes of trauma versus recognising and supporting chronic cumulative stressors. It is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture, with tensions between the below: T3: a lack of collective accountability, which blames individual staff for errors, versus a team/system-based approach T4: needing to raise concerns to improve conditions and patient safety versus fitness-to-practice processes becoming an oppressive force T5: encouraging staff to speak up versus the ‘deaf effect’ response from managers and hearers. The needs of the system often override staff well-being at work (‘serve and sacrifice’), with tensions between the below: T6: a professional culture that promotes a ‘serve and sacrifice’ ethos, which persuades staff to prioritise institutional needs, versus a culture that promotes self-care T7: supporting existing staff in the context of staff shortages versus perceived coercion to fill vacant shifts beyond contracted hours T8: the lived reality of staff shortages versus the wish to deliver high-quality patient care, which can result in moral distress (MD). There are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work and tensions between the below: T9: the reality of healthcare delivery versus the taught theory and values, which can lead to guilt and moral and emotional distress T10: the benefits of staff empathy to patients (ensuring quality care) versus the harms of staff empathy to staff (increasing risk of vicarious trauma or unhealthy/negative coping strategies). T11: the excessive requirements for emotional labour inherent in healthcare practice versus the need to improve workplace psychological ill-health. It is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors, with tensions between the below: T12: making staff wellness interventions mandatory versus voluntary T13: the need for spaces to debrief with managers/leaders so they hear and can thereby offer support versus the need for peer-led spaces for debriefing T14: the need to act and offer support versus providing interventions that are ineffective because they are too soon, reactive and/or single time point. Importantly, we identified that a multi-layered systems approach to psychological well-being is required; not a one-size-fits-all approach, but individualised, where everyday events as well as acute events, are acknowledged as impacting on staff psychological wellness. A psychologically safe culture, where good visible leaders enable and support staff to speak up and take accountability is needed to change the status quo. Initiatives such as the ‘Freedom to Speak up Guardians’ are promising but need adequate resources to learn from data, change culture and respond to concerns raised. Through the analysis, we learned that healthcare delivery and staff psychological health is a balancing act, with different considerations needing to be held in productive tension, such as needs of staff and the needs of patients. Our findings showed that nurses, midwives and paramedics tend to put patients first, often putting their own needs second, which can erode well-being in the face of intense and potentially traumatic work, and (counterintuitively) actually serve to compromise high-quality patient care. We identified that healthcare staff are selected and trained to hold strong professional values and codes of conduct. Yet, compassion and empathy can come at a high price for staff in terms of their own psychological health and not being able to deliver care in line with their values can cause guilt and MD or moral injury. We also identified the significant challenges of designing and embedding complex interventions within large organisations that meet the dynamic needs of diverse groups of healthcare staff, for example, considering who, when and how interventions are delivered, not just what they are. This implementation gap needs significant future attention in practice and research. Finally, the analysis of COVID-19 literature revealed that the pandemic had significantly impacted the psychological health of staff, in an almost entirely negative way, exacerbating and accelerating staff mental distress from already difficult pre-pandemic conditions. One of the few benefits that the pandemic offered was the focus on staff health and psychological well-being and adaptation and innovation of interventions to support staff, but many interventions had unintended negative consequences. Unfortunately, while most editorials and commentaries tended to call for multi-level, systems approaches, most empirical papers focused on single interventions, perhaps because these interventions are easier to design or evaluate. In other words, the practice and research effort seem to be focusing on what is easiest currently, rather than what is likely to be most effective. Therefore, in the future, more attention needs to be paid to how the primary, secondary and tertiary levels can work together to provide a systems approach to preventing, mitigating and treating psychological ill-health in staff. There is a focus on the traumatised (tip of the iceberg), rather than the essential needs of the majority and organisational prevention is under-represented. Some individual characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, sexual orientation and/or gender identity, and disability) deserve greater focus to improve understanding of causes and interventions. Our profession-specific analysis revealed a need for targeted interventions to support particular staff groups, especially minority groups and newly qualified staff, and at specific times when they may be at greater risk of psychological ill-health. Encouragingly, we also identified many ‘informal’ interventions, perhaps developed by front-line staff to plug gaps in current provision, some of which could be formalised. The strengths of our study were the use of realist methodology that uncovered rich insights, the cross-professional analysis, which provided unique perspectives, and the expertise offered by the multidisciplinary research team, advisory group and stakeholder group. In terms of limitations, the literature was not equivalent in size and quality across the three professions, the literature synthesised was not comprehensive, although it was appropriate to the methodology, and we did not carry out citation searches since hand searching and stakeholder/expert suggestions had proved an efficient way to identify papers. Conclusions Unequivocally our realist synthesis suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Our research has resulted in eight implications for healthcare practice suggesting a need for healthcare organisations to the following: rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive; invest in multi-level systems approaches to promote staff psychological well-being; continue to reduce stigma by implementing long-term plans and investment; focus on staff essential needs in order of priority; assume that staff are doing the best job they can in difficult circumstances, to counteract a blame culture; enable the needs of staff to be prioritised, to challenge a ‘serve and sacrifice’ ethos; identify and nurture future compassionate leaders; and use an evidence-based framework to self-assess and implement a systems approach to staff well-being, for example, the NHSE/I Health and Wellbeing Framework. Future research examining psychological ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics should build on our synthesis and seek to implement, refine and evaluate systemic interventional strategies. We recommend that interventions and evaluations are co-designed with front-line staff and staff experts by experience and tailored where possible to local organisational and workforce needs. Future interventions and research should focus on what is most needed, rather than what is easy to implement or evaluate, and significant attention should be paid to the implementation design and process. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020172420. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129528) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Background Unprofessional behaviour (UB) between staff encompasses various behaviours, including incivility, microaggressions, harassment, and bullying. UB is pervasive in acute healthcare settings and disproportionately impacts minoritised staff. UB has detrimental effects on staff wellbeing, patient safety and organisational resources. While interventions have been implemented to mitigate UB, there is limited understanding of how and why they may work and for whom. Methods This study utilised a realist review methodology with stakeholder input to improve understanding of these complex context-dependent interventions. Initial programme theories were formulated drawing upon scoping searches and reports known to the study team. Purposive systematic searches were conducted to gather grey and published global literature from databases. Documents were selected if relevant to UB in acute care settings while considering rigour and relevance. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. Results Of 2977 deduplicated records, 148 full text reports were included with 42 reports describing interventions to address UB in acute healthcare settings. Interventions drew on 13 types of behaviour change strategies and were categorised into five types of intervention (1) single session (i.e. one off); (2) multiple session; (3) single or multiple sessions combined with other actions (e.g. training sessions plus a code of conduct); (4) professional accountability and reporting programmes and; (5) structured culture change interventions. We formulated 55 context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how, why, and when these interventions work. We identified twelve key dynamics to consider in intervention design, including importance of addressing systemic contributors, rebuilding trust in managers, and promoting a psychologically safe culture; fifteen implementation principles were identified to address these dynamics. Conclusions Interventions to address UB are still at an early stage of development, and their effectiveness to reduce UB and improve patient safety is unclear. Future interventions should incorporate knowledge from behavioural and implementation science to affect behaviour change; draw on multiple concurrent strategies to address systemic contributors to UB; and consider the undue burden of UB on minoritised groups. Study registration This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .

Using qualitative interview data (n = 142 interviews) generated with 50 nurses, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper traces the trajectories of nurses in the UK and attempts to unpick the interplay between structure and agency in their narratives. Interviews were inductively analysed for themes and an additional narrative analysis was undertaken to preserve the form of each participant's narrative. We argue that nurses' pandemic trajectories occurred within the 'psychological vulnerability-stigma nexus' which operates within health and social care providers in the UK and whilst constraining nurses' agency at times it could also provide an impetus to act agentically. We found that the nurses' COVID-19 trajectories were characterised by: getting by, getting out (job-hopping) getting needs met and getting organised. We call for more considered systemic support to be generated and consistently provided to nurses to ensure retention of nurses and the security of society to avoid exacerbating existing workforce shortages.

Background: Dementia care is a key priority for both NHS England and the UK government. National guidelines highlight the importance of care coordination to address the challenges people living with dementia and their carers can encounter when trying to access the health and care system. To counter these challenges, Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (ICB) have recently implemented a proactive dementia care coordinator (DCC) service to support people with dementia and their carers from pre-diagnosis to end-of-life care. Aim: To understand how the DCC service works (or does not work), for whom, and in what circumstances. The findings will inform service development and future investment decisions. Design & setting: This study will use a realist approach to evaluate the DCC service in Kent and Medway ICB, south-east England, which has a population of 1.9 million, comprising 42 primary care networks (PCNs; groups of general practices) each having a DCC. Method: An initial programme theory will be developed from existing literature, and in collaboration with stakeholders. Mixed methods, including questionnaires to DCCs, service provider metrics, and qualitative interviews, will be used to collect data on service provider and service user experiences. Interpretive comparative analysis and narrative synthesis, including evaluation of service costs against outcomes, will produce a refined final programme theory. Results: The results from this project will produce evidence-based recommendations to help improve service delivery and possible service expansion. Conclusion: This protocol describes a realist evaluation designed to investigate the recently implemented DCC service in Kent and Medway ICB.

Background: Healthcare professionals’ psychological wellbeing at work affects patients’ experiences of care. However, the literature tends to focus on negative aspects of psychological wellbeing, such as stress and burnout, and interventions to support healthcare professionals’ wellbeing have limited effectiveness. The growing global concern over the psychological wellbeing of healthcare professionals has escalated following the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an urgent need to review the recent literature on healthcare professionals' psychological wellbeing to identify gaps in our knowledge. This scoping review will help focus the future research to improve the psychological wellbeing of healthcare staff and thereby patients’ care experiences. Aim: This scoping review aims to answer two research questions: 1) What do we know about healthcare professionals' and patients' perceptions of healthcare professionals' psychological wellbeing at work? 2) How does the psychological wellbeing of healthcare professionals at work affect patients' experiences of care? Method: We conducted a scoping review using frameworks developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien (2010). Our comprehensive literature search covered publications dated 2011–2021 in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and PsychInfo, NIHR Journals, EThOS, Open Grey, Google Scholar, and the Department for Health and Social Care and Kings Fund websites. We also hand-searched the reference lists of included studies. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies. Results: We included 56 articles from 16 countries, most using qualitative methods. We identified five themes: 1) The definition of healthcare professional psychological wellbeing; 2) The relationship between healthcare professionals’ psychological wellbeing and nature of healthcare work; 3) The role of organisational culture in healthcare professionals’ psychological wellbeing and the importance of organisational culture; 4) The impact the COVID-19 pandemic on of healthcare professionals’ psychological wellbeing; and 5) The link between healthcare professionals’ psychological wellbeing and patients’ experiences of care. We found a complex relationship between organisational culture, healthcare professionals’ perceptions of psychological wellbeing, and patients’ experiences of care. Conclusion: While there is currently no consensus on the definition of psychological wellbeing in healthcare professionals, our review highlights its relation to organizational culture and its impact on patients' experiences of care. Future research should include patients' perspectives and develop meaningful ways to support, develop, and retain healthcare professionals. Tweetable abstract: Scoping review: wellbeing of healthcare professionals is poorly understood. Basic needs must be met first to support staff to care @KathrynBamforth

Abstract Background There is sufficient and consistent international evidence of issues reported by nurses working in single-bed room environments, requiring a design that is not only comfortable for patients but meets nurses working needs. This paper presents a comparison of nursing staff and patients experience prior to a move to 100% single-bed room hospital in 2016 (Stage 1) and actual experiences after the move in 2021 (Stage 2) in South Australia. Method Mixed method case study design. Survey sample of forty-two nursing staff; twelve patient interviews of their experiences of current environment and; thirteen nursing staff interviews of their experiences delivering nursing care in 100% single bed-room environment. Results Nurses and patients highlighted single-bed rooms contributed to patients’ privacy, confidentiality, dignity and comfort. As anticipated in Stage 1, nurses in Stage 2 reported lack of patient and staff visibility. This impacted workload, workflow and concern for patient safety. Conclusion Patient and nursing staff experiences are interdependent, and implications of single-bed room accommodation are complicated. Future impacts on the health system will continue to affect hospital design, which must consider nurses working needs and patient safety and comfort.

Introduction Accurate and timely dispatch of emergency medical services (EMS) is vital due to limited resources and patients’ risk of mortality and morbidity increasing with time. Currently, most UK emergency operations centres (EOCs) rely on audio calls and accurate descriptions of the incident and patients’ injuries from lay 999 callers. If dispatchers in the EOCs could see the scene via live video streaming from the caller’s smartphone, this may enhance their decision making and enable quicker and more accurate dispatch of EMS. The main aim of this feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive RCT to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of using live streaming to improve targeting of EMS.Methods and analysis The SEE-IT Trial is a feasibility RCT with a nested process evaluation. The study also has two observational substudies: (1) in an EOC that routinely uses live streaming to assess the acceptability and feasibility of live streaming in a diverse inner-city population and (2) in an EOC that does not currently use live streaming to act as a comparator site regarding the psychological well-being of EOC staff using versus not using live streaming.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Health Research Authority on 23 March 2022 (ref: 21/LO/0912), which included NHS Confidentiality Advisory Group approval received on 22 March 2022 (ref: 22/CAG/0003). This manuscript refers to V.0.8 of the protocol (7 November 2022). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN11449333). The first participant was recruited on 18 June 2022.The main output of this feasibility trial will be the knowledge gained to help inform the development of a large multicentre RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of the use of live streaming to aid EMS dispatch for trauma incidents.Trial registration number ISRCTN11449333.

Abstract Background It is the responsibility of healthcare regulators to ensure healthcare professionals remain fit for practice in healthcare settings. If there are concerns about an individual healthcare professional they may undergo a fitness to practice investigation. This process is known to be hugely stressful for doctors and social workers, but little is known about the impact of this experience on other professions. This study explores the experiences of registrants going through the process of being reported to the UK’s Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and attending fitness to practice (FTP) hearings. We discuss the implications of this process on registrants’ wellbeing and, from our findings, present recommendations based on registrants experiences. In doing so we articulate the structural processes of the HCPC FTP process and the impact this has on individuals. Methods This study uses semi-structured interviews and framework analysis to explore the experiences of 15 registrants who had completed the FTP process. Participants were sampled for maximum variation and were selected to reflect the range of possible processes and outcomes through the FTP process. Results The psychological impact of undergoing a FTP process was significant for the majority of participants. Their stories described influences on their wellbeing at both a macro (institutional/organisational) and micro (individual) level. A lack of information, long length of time for the process and poor support avenues were macro factors impacting on the ability of registrants to cope with their experiences (theme 1). These macro factors led to feelings of powerlessness, vulnerability and threat of ruin for many registrants (theme 2). Suggested improvements (theme 3) included better psychological support (e.g. signposting or provision); proportional processes to the incident (e.g. mediation instead of hearings); and taking context into account. Conclusions Findings suggest that improvements to both the structure and conduct of the FTP process are warranted. Implementation of better signposting for support both during and after a FTP process may improve psychological wellbeing. There may also be value in considering alternative ways of organising the FTP process to enable greater consideration of and flexibility for registrants’ context and how they are investigated.

Background: The introduction of ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardians’ into every NHS trust in England was intended to support workers and trusts to better raise, respond to and learn from speaking-up concerns. However, only broad guidance was provided on how to implement the role. As a result, there is the potential for important local differences to emerge as the role is implemented across England. Objectives: The overall aim of this study was to better understand the implementation of Guardians in acute trusts and mental health trusts. Design: The Freedom to Speak Up Guardian role was conceptualised as a complex intervention consisting of several interacting and interlocking components spanning the macro level (national organisations), the meso level (individual trusts) and the micro level (employees, teams and wards/units). A mixed-methods study was designed, which consisted of three work packages: (1) a systematic narrative review of the international literature regarding interventions promoting ‘speaking up’ by health-care employees; (2) semistructured telephone interviews with Guardians working in acute hospital trusts and mental health trusts; and (3) qualitative case studies of Freedom to Speak Up Guardian implementation, consisting of observations and interviews undertaken in four acute trusts and two mental health trusts. Interviews were also undertaken with national stakeholders. Setting: Acute trusts and mental health NHS trusts in England. Participants: Work package 2: Freedom to Speak Up Guardians (n = 87) were interviewed. Work package 3: 116 interviews with key stakeholders involved in pre-implementation and early implementation decision-making, workers who had spoken up to the Guardian, and national stakeholders. Results: Wide variability was identified in how the Guardian role had been implemented, resourced and deployed by NHS trusts. ‘Freedom to Speak Up Guardian’ is best considered an umbrella term, and multiple versions of the role exist simultaneously across England. Any comparisons of Guardians’ effectiveness are likely to be possible or meaningful only when this variability is properly accounted for. Many Freedom to Speak Up Guardians identified how a lack of available resources, especially time scarcity, negatively and significantly affected their ability to effectively respond to concerns; their opportunities to collect, analyse and learn from speaking-up data; and, more generally, the extent to which they developed their role and speak-up culture. Limitations: It is possible that those whom we interviewed were more receptive of Freedom to Speak Up Guardians or may have been biased by ‘socially desirability’, and their answers may not always have represented respondents’ true perceptions. Conclusions: Optimal implementation of the Guardian role has five components: (1) establishing an early, collaborative and coherent strategy congruent with the values of Freedom to Speak Up fosters the implementation of (2) policies and robust, yet supportive, practices (3) informed by frequent and reflexive monitoring of Freedom to Speak Up implementation that is (4) underpinned by sufficient time and resource allocation that leads to (5) a positive implementation climate that is congruent with Freedom to Speak Up values and is well placed to engender positive and sustainable Freedom to Speak Up culture and the well-being of a Guardian. Future work: The following recommendations for future research are considered to be of equal priority. Studies of the speaking-up experiences of minority communities and ‘seldom-heard’ workforce groups are a priority requirement. There is also value in undertaking a similar study in non-hospital settings and where peripatetic working is commonplace, such as in ambulance services and in primary care settings. The role of human resources and ‘middle managers’ in the management of concerns is an area requiring further research, especially regarding concerns relating to unprofessional and transgressive behaviours. Devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales have adopted different approaches to speaking up; research undertaken in these contexts would offer valuable comparative insights. Researching the Guardian role ≥ 5 years post implementation is recommended to understand the medium-term impact and the longer-term sustainability of the role and well-being of Guardians. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN38163690 and has the study registration CRD42018106311. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction Unprofessional behaviours encompass many behaviours including bullying, harassment and microaggressions. These behaviours between healthcare staff are problematic; they affect people’s ability to work, to feel psychologically safe at work and speak up and to deliver safe care to patients. Almost a fifth of UK National Health Service staff experience unprofessional behaviours in the workplace, with higher incidence in acute care settings and for staff from minority backgrounds. Existing analyses have investigated the effectiveness of strategies to reduce these behaviours. We seek to go beyond these, to understand the range and causes of such behaviours, their negative effects and how mitigation strategies may work, in which contexts and for whom.Methods and analysis This study uses a realist review methodology with stakeholder input comprising a number of iterative steps: (1) formulating initial programme theories drawing on informal literature searches and literature already known to the study team, (2) performing systematic and purposive searches for grey and peer-reviewed literature on Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases as well as Google and Google Scholar, (3) selecting appropriate documents while considering rigour and relevance, (4) extracting data, (5) and synthesising and (6) refining the programme theories by testing the theories against the newly identified literature.Ethics and dissemination Ethical review is not required as this study is a secondary research. An impact strategy has been developed which includes working closely with key stakeholders throughout the project. Step 7 of our project will develop pragmatic resources for managers and professionals, tailoring contextually-sensitive strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours, identifying what works for which groups. We will be guided by the ‘Evidence Integration Triangle’ to implement the best strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours in given contexts. Dissemination will occur through presentation at conferences, innovative methods (cartoons, videos, animations and/or interactive performances) and peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021255490.

Abstract Background Work stress and compassion fatigue are prevalent among healthcare staff and their negative effects on staff well-being and patient care are well-known. This paper reports on the implementation and evaluation of Schwartz Rounds® (Rounds) in UK healthcare organizations, predominantly part of the National Health Service (NHS). Rounds are one-hour, typically monthly, multidisciplinary forums during which clinical and nonclinical healthcare staff discuss the emotional and social demands of delivering patient care. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of Rounds attendance on the psychological distress, work engagement, compassion and self-reflection of healthcare staff. Methods We used a pre-post control design to assess the effect of Rounds attendance across 10 UK healthcare organizations. This design was most appropriate given the voluntary nature of Rounds and ensured the study had ecological validity. Self-reported data were collected from attenders and non-attenders at baseline and at eight-months follow-up. The outcomes were psychological distress, work engagement, compassion and self-reflection. Results During the 8 months’ study duration, regular attenders (N = 51) attended Rounds on average 4 times (2–8). Attenders showed a significantly greater decrease in psychological distress (as measured with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)) than non-attenders (N = 233; odds ratio of 0.197; 95% confidence interval (0.047–0.823)). However, Rounds attendance had no significant effect on work engagement, compassion and self-reflection. Conclusions Rounds attendance was linked to a 19% reduction in psychological distress adjusting for covariates. As an organization-wide intervention, Rounds thus constitute an effective, relatively low-cost intervention to assist staff in dealing with the demands of their work and to improve their well-being.

Abstract Background ‘Older People’s Shoes’ is a training intervention designed for healthcare assistants (HCAs) to improve the relational care of older people in hospital. The intervention formed part of a broader evaluation, in this paper we describe its development from a learning design and methodological perspective. Methods Learning theory and an instructional design model were key components of the In-PREP (Input, Process, Review and Evaluation, Product) development methodology used in the design of the ‘Older People’s Shoes’ training intervention to improve the delivery of relational care by front-line hospital staff. An expert panel, current evidence, and pedagogical theory were used to co-design a training programme tailored to a challenging work environment and taking account of trainees’ diverse educational experience. Peer review and process evaluation were built into the development model. Results In-PREP provided a methodological scaffold for producing evidence-based, peer-reviewed, co-designed training. The product, ‘Older People’s Shoes’, involved a one-day Train the Trainers event, followed by delivery of a two-day, face-to-face training programme by the trainers, with accompanying handbooks underpinned by a range of digital resources. Evaluation found the approach met learner needs, was applicable in practice and won approval from trainers. Discussion In-PREP enables high quality learning content, alignment with learner needs and a product that is relevant, practical and straightforward to implement.

It has long been known that nursing work is challenging and has the potential for negative impacts. During the COVID-19 pandemic most nurses’ working landscapes altered dramatically and many faced unprecedented challenges. Resilience is a contested term that has been used with increasing prevalence in healthcare with health professionals encouraging a “tool-box” of stress management techniques and resilience-building skills. Drawing on narrative interview data ( n = 27) from the Impact of Covid on Nurses (ICON) qualitative study we examine how nurses conceptualized resilience during COVID-19 and the impacts this had on their mental wellbeing. We argue here that it is paramount that nurses are not blamed for experiencing workplace stress when perceived not to be resilient “enough,” particularly when expressing what may be deemed to be normal and appropriate reactions given the extreme circumstances and context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background Schwartz Center Rounds® (henceforce Rounds) were developed in the United States (US) in 1995 to provide a regular, structured time and safe place for staff to meet to share the emotional, psychological and social challenges of working in healthcare. Rounds were adopted in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2009 and have been subsequently implemented in over 180 healthcare organisations. Using Rounds as a case study, we aim to inform current debates around maintaining fidelity when an intervention developed in one country is transferred and implemented in another. Methods Interpretive design using nine qualitative interviews (UK = 3, US = 6) and four focus groups (UK: Focus group 1 (4 participants), Focus group 2 (5 participants; US: focus group 1 (5 participants) focus group 2 (2 participants) with participants involved in Rounds design and implementation, for example, programme architects, senior leaders, mentors and trainers. We also conducted non-participant observations of Rounds (UK = 42: USA = 2) and training days (UK = 2). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results We identified four core and seven sub-core Rounds components, based upon the US design, and seven peripheral components, based on our US and UK fieldwork. We found high core component fidelity and examples of UK adaptations. We identified six strategies used to maintain high fidelity during Rounds transfer and implementation from the US to UK settings: i) having a legal contract between the two national bodies overseeing implementation, ii) requiring adopting UK healthcare organisations to sign a contract with the national body, iii) piloting the intervention in the UK context, iv) emphasising the credibility of the intervention, v) promoting and evaluating Rounds, and vi) providing implementation support and infrastructure. Conclusions This study identifies how fidelity to the core components of a particular intervention was maintained during transfer from one country to another by identifying six strategies which participants argued had enhanced fidelity during transfer of Rounds to a different country, with contractual agreements and legitimacy of intervention sources key. Potential disadvantages include limitations to further innovation and adaptation.

Abstract Background Twenty-four hour nursing care involves shift work including 12-h shifts. England is unusual in deploying a mix of shift patterns. International evidence on the effects of such shifts is growing. A secondary analysis of data collected in England exploring outcomes with 12-h shifts examined the association between shift length, job satisfaction, scheduling flexibility, care quality, patient safety, and care left undone. Methods Data were collected from a questionnaire survey of nurses in a sample of English hospitals, conducted as part of the RN4CAST study, an EU 7th Framework funded study. The sample comprised 31 NHS acute hospital Trusts from 401 wards, in 46 acute hospital sites. Descriptive analysis included frequencies, percentages and mean scores by shift length, working beyond contracted hours and day or night shift. Multi-level regression models established statistical associations between shift length and nurse self-reported measures. Results Seventy-four percent (1898) of nurses worked a day shift and 26% (670) a night shift. Most Trusts had a mixture of shifts lengths. Self-reported quality of care was higher amongst nurses working ≤8 h (15.9%) compared to those working longer hours (20.0 to 21.1%). The odds of poor quality care were 1.64 times higher for nurses working ≥12 h (OR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.18–2.28, p = 0.003). Mean ‘care left undone’ scores varied by shift length: 3.85 (≤8 h), 3.72 (8.01–10.00 h), 3.80 (10.01–11.99 h) and were highest amongst those working ≥12 h (4.23) (p

Background: The ‘Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care’™ programme (Productive Ward; PW) was introduced in English NHS acute hospitals in 2007 to give ward staff the tools, skills and time needed to implement local improvements to (1) increase the time nurses spend on direct patient care, (2) improve the safety and reliability of care, (3) improve staff and patient experience and (4) make structural changes on wards to improve efficiency. Evidence of whether or not these goals were met and sustained is very limited. Objective: To explore if PW had a sustained impact over the past decade. Design: Multiple methods, comprising two online national surveys, six acute trust case studies (including a secondary analysis of local audit data) and telephone interviews. Data sources: Surveys of 56 directors of nursing and 35 current PW leads; 88 staff and patient and public involvement representative interviews; 10 ward manager questionnaires; structured observations of 12 randomly selected wards and documentary analysis in case studies; and 14 telephone interviews with former PW leads. Results: Trusts typically adopted PW in 2008–9 on their wards using a phased implementation approach. The average length of PW use was 3 years (range

Background: Schwartz Center Rounds® (Rounds) were introduced into the UK in 2009 to support health-care staff to deliver compassionate care, something the Francis report (Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013) identified as lacking. Rounds are organisation-wide forums that prompt reflection and discussion of the emotional, social and ethical challenges of health-care work, with the aim of improving staff well-being and patient care. Objectives: How, in which contexts and for whom Rounds participation affects staff well-being at work, increases social support for staff and improves patient care. Design: (1) A scoping review of Rounds literature and comparison with alternative interventions; (2) mapping Rounds providers via a survey, telephone interviews and secondary data; (3) a two-wave survey of (i) new attenders/non-attenders in 10 sites to determine the impact on staff engagement and well-being; and (ii) interviews with Rounds attenders, non-attenders, facilitators, clinical leads, steering group members, board members and observations in nine case study sites to (4) describe experiences and (5) test candidate programme theories by which Rounds ‘work’ (realist evaluation). Setting: (1) International literature (English); (2) all Rounds providers (acute/community NHS trusts and hospices) at 1 September 2014 (survey/interview) and 15 July 2015 (secondary data); (3) 10 survey sites; and (4 and 5) nine organisational case study sites (six of which also took part in the survey). Participants: (1) Ten papers were reviewed for Rounds and 146 were reviewed for alternative interventions. (2) Surveys were received from 41 out of 76 (54%) providers and interviews were conducted with 45 out of 76 (59%) providers. (3) Surveys were received from 1140 out of 3815 (30%) individuals at baseline and from 500 out of 1140 (44%) individuals at follow-up. (4 and 5) A total of 177 interviews were conducted, as were observations of 42 Rounds, 29 panel preparations and 28 steering group meetings. Results: (1) The evidence base is limited; compared with 11 alternative interventions, Rounds offer a unique organisation-wide ‘all staff’ forum in which disclosure/contribution is not essential. (2) Implementation rapidly increased between 2013 and 2015; Rounds were implemented variably; challenges included ward staff attendance and the workload and resources required to sustain Rounds; and costs were widely variable. (3) There was no change in engagement, but poor psychological well-being (12-item General Health Questionnaire) reduced significantly (p

Background: Older people account for an increasing proportion of those receiving NHS acute care. The quality of health care delivered to older people has come under increased scrutiny. Health-care assistants (HCAs) provide much of the direct care of older people in hospital. Patients’ experience of care tends to be based on the relational aspects of that care including dignity, empathy and emotional support. Objective(s): We aimed to understand the relational care training needs of HCAs caring for older people, design a relational care training intervention for HCAs and assess the feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial to test the new intervention against HCA training as usual (TAU). Design: (1) A telephone survey of all NHS hospital trusts in England to assess current HCA training provision, (2) focus groups of older people and carers, (3) semistructured interviews with HCAs and other care staff to establish training needs and inform intervention development and (4) a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: (1) All acute NHS hospital trusts in England, and (2–4) three acute NHS hospital trusts in England and the populations they serve. Participants: (1) Representatives of 113 out of the total of 161 (70.2%) NHS trusts in England took part in the telephone survey, (2) 29 older people or carer participants in three focus groups, (3) 30 HCA and 24 ‘other staff’ interviewees and (4) 12 wards (four per trust), 112 HCAs, 92 patients during the prerandomisation period and 67 patients during the postrandomisation period. Interventions: For the feasibility trial, a training intervention (Older People’s Shoes™) for HCAs developed as part of the study was compared with HCA TAU. Main outcome measures: Patient-level outcomes were the experience of emotional care and quality of life during patients’ hospital stay, as measured by the Patient Evaluation of Emotional Care during Hospitalisation and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaires. HCA outcomes were empathy, as measured by the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire, and attitudes towards older people, as measured by the Age Group Evaluation and Description Inventory. Ward-level outcomes were the quality of HCA–patient interaction, as measured by the Quality of Interaction Scale. Results: (1) One-third of trust telephone survey participants reported HCA training content that we considered to be ‘relational care’. Training for HCAs is variable across trusts and is focused on new recruits. The biggest challenge for HCA training is getting HCAs released from ward duties. (2) Older people and carers are aware of the pressures that ward staff are under but good relationships with care staff determine whether or not their experience of hospital is positive. (3) HCAs have training needs related to ‘difficult conversations’ with patients and relatives; they have particular preferences for learning styles that are not always reflected in available training. (4) In the feasibility trial, 187 of the 192 planned ward observation sessions were completed; the response to HCA questionnaires at baseline and at 8 and 12 weeks post randomisation was 64.2%, 46.4% and 35.7%, respectively, and 57.2% of eligible patients returned completed questionnaires. Limitations: This was an intervention development and feasibility study so no conclusions can be drawn about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Conclusions: The intervention had high acceptability among nurse trainers and HCA learners. Viability of a definitive trial is conditional on overcoming specific methodological (patient recruitment processes) and contextual (involvement of wider ward team) challenges. Future work: Methods to ease the burden of questionnaire completion without compromising ethics or methodological rigour need to be explored. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10385799. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 5, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: New hospital design includes more single room accommodation but there is scant and ambiguous evidence relating to the impact on patient safety and staff and patient experiences. Objectives: To explore the impact of the move to a newly built acute hospital with all single rooms on care delivery, working practices, staff and patient experience, safety outcomes and costs. Design: (1) Mixed-methods study to inform a pre-/post-‘move’ comparison within a single hospital, (2) quasi-experimental study in two control hospitals and (3) analysis of capital and operational costs associated with single rooms. Setting: Four nested case study wards [postnatal, acute admissions unit (AAU), general surgery and older people’s] within a new hospital with all single rooms. Matched wards in two control hospitals formed the comparator group. Data sources: Twenty-one stakeholder interviews; 250 hours of observation, 24 staff interviews, 32 patient interviews, staff survey (n = 55) and staff pedometer data (n = 56) in the four case study wards; routinely collected data at ward level in the control hospitals (e.g. infection rates) and costs associated with hospital design (e.g. cleaning and staffing) in the new hospital. Results: (1) There was no significant change to the proportion of time spent by nursing staff on different activities. Staff perceived improvements (patient comfort and confidentiality), but thought the new accommodation worse for visibility and surveillance, teamwork, monitoring, safeguarding and remaining close to patients. Giving sufficient time and attention to each patient, locating other staff and discussing care with colleagues proved difficult. Two-thirds of patients expressed a clear preference for single rooms, with the benefits of comfort and control outweighing any disadvantages. Some patients experienced care as task-driven and functional, and interaction with other patients was absent, leading to a sense of isolation. Staff walking distances increased significantly after the move. (2) A temporary increase in falls and medication errors within the AAU was likely to be associated with the need to adjust work patterns rather than associated with single rooms, although staff perceived the loss of panoptic surveillance as the key to increases in falls. Because of the fall in infection rates nationally and the low incidence at our study site and comparator hospitals, it is difficult to conclude from our data that it is the ‘single room’ factor that prevents infection. (3) Building an all single room hospital can cost 5% more but the difference is marginal over time. Housekeeping and cleaning costs are higher. Conclusions: The nature of tasks undertaken by nurses did not change, but staff needed to adapt their working practices significantly and felt ill prepared for the new ways of working, with potentially significant implications for the nature of teamwork in the longer term. Staff preference remained for a mix of single rooms and bays. Patients preferred single rooms. There was no strong evidence that single rooms had any impact on patient safety but housekeeping and cleaning costs are higher. In terms of future work, patient experience and preferences in hospitals with different proportions of single rooms/designs need to be explored with a larger patient sample. The long-term impact of single room working on the nature of teamwork and informal learning and on clinical/care outcomes should also be explored. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.