ORCID Profile
0000-0002-2905-6011
Current Organisation
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-02-2023
DOI: 10.1111/JOCN.16642
Abstract: The critical care nursing workforce is in crisis, with one‐third of critical care nurses worldwide intending to leave their roles. This paper aimed to examine the problem from a wellbeing perspective, offering implications for research, and potential solutions for organisations. Discursive/Position paper. The discussion is based on the nursing and wellbeing literature. It is guided by the authors' collaborative expertise as both clinicians and researchers. Data were drawn from nursing and wellbeing peer‐reviewed literature, such as reviews and empirical studies, national surveys and government and thinktank publications/reports. Critical care nurses have been disproportionately affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic with studies consistently showing critical care nurses to have the worst psychological outcomes on wellbeing measures, including depression, burnout and post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These findings are not only concerning for the mental wellbeing of critical care nurses, they also raise significant issues for healthcare systems/organisations: poor wellbeing, increased burnout and PTSD are directly linked with critical care nurses intending to leave the profession. Thus, the wellbeing of critical care nurses must urgently be supported. Resilience has been identified as a protective mechanism against the development of PTSD and burnout, thus offering evidence‐based interventions that address resilience and turnover have much to offer in tackling the workforce crisis. However, turnover data must be collected by studies evaluating resilience interventions, to further support their evidence base. Organisations cannot solely rely on the efficacy of these interventions to address their workforce crisis but must concomitantly engage in organisational change. We conclude that critical care nurses are in urgent need of preventative, evidence‐based wellbeing interventions, and make suggestions for research and practice.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 27-11-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S12913-020-05948-2
Abstract: Healthcare professionals are experiencing unprecedented levels of occupational stress and burnout. Higher stress and burnout in health professionals is linked with the delivery of poorer quality, less safe patient care across healthcare settings. In order to understand how we can better support healthcare professionals in the workplace, this study evaluated a tailored resilience coaching intervention comprising a workshop and one-to-one coaching session addressing the intrinsic challenges of healthcare work in health professionals and students. The evaluation used an uncontrolled before-and-after design with four data-collection time points: baseline (T1) after the workshop (T2) after the coaching session (T3) and four-to-six weeks post-baseline (T4). Quantitative outcome measures were Confidence in Coping with Adverse Events (‘Confidence’), a Knowledge assessment (‘Knowledge’) and Resilience. At T4, qualitative interviews were also conducted with a subset of participants exploring participant experiences and perceptions of the intervention. We recruited 66 participants, retaining 62 (93.9%) at T2, 47 (71.2%) at T3, and 33 (50%) at T4. Compared with baseline, Confidence was significantly higher post-intervention: T2 (unadj. β = 2.43, 95% CI 2.08–2.79, d = 1.55, p .001), T3 (unadj. β = 2.81, 95% CI 2.42–3.21, d = 1.71, p .001) and T4 (unadj. β = 2.75, 95% CI 2.31–3.19, d = 1.52, p .001). Knowledge increased significantly post-intervention (T2 unadj. β = 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.46, d = 0.86, p .001). Compared with baseline, resilience was also higher post-intervention (T3 unadj. β = 2.77, 95% CI 1.82–3.73, d = 0.90, p .001 and T4 unadj. β = 2.54, 95% CI 1.45–3.62, d = 0.65, p .001). The qualitative findings identified four themes. The first addressed the ‘tension between mandatory and voluntary delivery’, suggesting that resilience is a mandatory skillset but it may not be effective to make the training a mandatory requirement. The second, the ‘importance of experience and reference points for learning’, suggested the intervention was more appropriate for qualified staff than students. The third suggested participants valued the ‘peer learning and engagement’ they gained in the interactive group workshop. The fourth, ‘opportunities to tailor learning’, suggested the coaching session was an opportunity to personalise the workshop material. We found preliminary evidence that the intervention was well received and effective, but further research using a randomised controlled design will be necessary to confirm this.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Luke Budworth.