The purpose of this study was to further our understanding of the effects of nursing-related hospital variables on 30-day mortality rates for hospitalized patients. A retrospective design was used to test the proposed 30-Day Mortality Model. The sample consisted of 75 acute-care hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada. To develop hospital mortality rates, 46,941 patients discharged from these hospitals who had a most responsible diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, or septicemia were included. To develop hospital-level nursing predictor variables, 3,998 responses to the Ontario Registered Nurse Survey of Hospital Characteristics were also included. The findings support a relationship between lower 30-day mortality and 3 predictors: a richer registered nurse skill mix, more years of experience on the clinical unit, and reported larger number of shifts missed. These findings can be used to predict the effects of hospital changes in nursing skill mix and years of RN experience on patient mortality.

Nursing-Related Determinants of 30-Day Mortality for Hospitalized Patients: Findings of Two Ontario, Canada Studies

This paper reports on selected findings from a novel randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in mental health settings in Queensland, Australia. Several national and state reports recently revealed the sub-optimal state of Australian mental health service provision which have direct implications for mental health nursing, including the privately experienced cost of working and coping in these settings. Clinical supervision (CS), a structured staff support arrangement, has shown promise as a positive contribution to the clinical practice development agenda and is now found reflected in health policy themes elsewhere in the world. However, CS is underdeveloped in Australia and the empirical evidence base for the informed implementation of CS, per se, has remained elusive. Within the overall context of a RCT design, therefore, and supplemented by other data collection methods, this large and generously funded study attempted to make an incremental contribution to better understanding this demanding subst...

A randomised controlled trial of clinical supervision: selected findings from a novel Australian attempt to establish the evidence base for causal relationships with quality of care and patient outcomes, as an informed contribution to mental health nursing practice development

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 < 0.05) in Rounds attenders (25% to 12%) compared with non-attenders (37% to 34%). (4 and 5) Rounds were described as interesting, engaging and supportive; four contextual layers explained the variation in Rounds implementation. We identified four stages of Rounds, ‘core’ and ‘adaptable’ components of Rounds fidelity, and nine context–mechanism–outcome configurations: (i) trust, emotional safety and containment and (ii) group interaction were prerequisites for creating (iii) a countercultural space in Rounds where staff could (iv) tell stories, (v) self-disclose their experiences to peers and (vi) role model vulnerability; (vii) provide important context for staff and patient behaviour; (viii) shining a spotlight on hidden staff and patient stories reduced isolation and enhanced support/teamwork; and (ix) staff learned through reflection resulting in ripple effects and outcomes. Reported outcomes included increased empathy and compassion for colleagues and patients, support for staff and reported changes in practice. The impact of Rounds is cumulative and we have identified the necessary conditions for Rounds to work.

Limitations
Rounds outcomes relied on self-report, fewer regular attenders were recruited than desired, and it was not possible to observe staff post Rounds.

Conclusion
Rounds offer unique support for staff and positively influence staff well-being, empathy and compassion for patients and colleagues.

A realist informed mixed-methods evaluation of Schwartz Center Rounds® in England

Objectives (i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds. Design Systematic review of Rounds literature; scoping reviews of comparator interventions (action learning sets; after action reviews; Balint groups; caregiver support programme; clinical supervision; critical incident stress debriefing; mindfulness-based stress reduction; peer-supported storytelling; psychosocial intervention training; reflective practice groups; resilience training). Data sources PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts. Eligibility criteria Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English. Results The overall evidence base for Rounds is limited. We developed a composite definition to aid comparison with other interventions from 41 documents containing a definition of Rounds. Twelve (10 studies) were empirical evaluations. All were of low/moderate quality (weak study designs including lack of control groups). Findings showed the value of Rounds to attenders, with a self-reported positive impact on individuals, their relationships with colleagues and patients and wider cultural changes. The evidence for the comparative interventions was scant and also low/moderate quality. Some features of Rounds were shared by other interventions, but Rounds offer unique features including being open to all staff and having no expectation for verbal contribution by attenders. Conclusions Evidence of effectiveness for all interventions considered here remains limited. Methods that enable identification of core features related to effectiveness are needed to optimise benefit for individual staff members and organisations as a whole. A systems approach conceptualising workplace well-being arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the well-being of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff well-being.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/10/e024254.full.pdf

Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews.

Butterworth Tony

Papers

Wicked spell or magic bullet? A review of the clinical supervision literature 2001–2007