ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1609-5898
Current Organisations
Manchester Metropolitan University
,
Anglia Ruskin University
,
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: 18-12-2022
DOI: 10.1111/JOCN.16605
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 16-12-2022
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 04-03-2022
DOI: 10.1111/JEP.13555
Abstract: Consistent data demonstrates negative psychological effects of caregiving on front-line health professionals. Evidence that psychological resilience factors can help minimize distress and the potential for low-cost interventions have created interest in resilience-based development programmes yet evidence of perceived value amongst health professionals is lacking. This study explored health professionals' experiences and perceptions of a novel, resilience-based intervention designed to pro-actively prepare staff for coping with error to investigate their perceptions of what resilience meant to them, the relevance of the intervention, and impact of participation on ability to cope with error. Semi-structured interviews 4-6 weeks post intervention with 23 randomly selected participants from seven cohorts (midwives, paediatricians, obstetricians/gynaecologists, paramedics) and trainees (physician associates, mammographers, sonographers). Thematic analysis of interview data. Participants reported various interpretations of, and a shift in perception regarding what the concept of psychological resilience meant to them and their practice. These included for ex le, resilience as a positive or negative concept and their awareness and response to a range of personal, organizational and system factors influencing personal resilience. They valued the prophylactic, clinically relevant, interactive and applied nature of the intervention having developed and applied valuable skills beyond the context of involvement in error, noting that in iduals needed to be willing to explore their own coping mechanisms and human fallibility to gain maximum benefit. There was also consensus that whilst proactively developing in idual level psychological resilience is important, so too is addressing the organizational and system factors that affect staff resilience which are outside in idual staff control. Enhancing resilience appears to be considered useful in supporting staff to prepare for coping with error and the wider emotional burden of clinical work, but such interventions require integration into wider system approaches to reduce the burden of clinical work for health professionals.
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
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Gillian Janes.