This review aimed to synthesise the literature describing interventions to improve resilience among physicians, to evaluate the quality of this research and to outline the type and efficacy of interventions implemented. Searches were conducted in April 2017 using five electronic databases. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies evaluating interventions to improve physician resilience were included. Data were extracted on setting, design, participant and intervention characteristics and outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Twenty-two studies were included. Methodological quality was low to moderate. The most frequently employed interventional strategies were psychosocial skills training and mindfulness training. Effect sizes were heterogeneous. Methodologically rigorous research is required to establish best practice in improving resilience among physicians and to better consider how healthcare settings should be considered within interventions.

BackgroundRecent research has demonstrated that burnout is widespread among physicians, and impacts their wellbeing, and that of patients. Such data have prompted efforts to teach resilience among physicians, but efforts are hampered by a lack of understanding of how physicians experience resilience and stress. This study aimed to contribute to knowledge regarding how physicians define resilience, the challenges posed by workplace stressors, and strategies which enable physicians to cope with these stressors.MethodsA qualitative approach was adopted, with 68 semi-structured interviews conducted with Irish physicians. Data were analysed using deductive content-analysis.ResultsFive themes emerged from the interviews. The first theme, ‘The Nature of Resilience’ captured participants’ understanding of resilience. Many of the participants considered resilience to be “coping”, rather than “thriving” in instances of adversity. The second theme was ‘Challenges of the Profession’, as participants described workplace stressors which threatened their wellbeing, including long shifts, lack of resources, and heavy workloads. The third theme, ‘Job-related Gratification’, captured aspects of the workplace that support resilience, such as gratification from medical efficacy. ‘Resilience Strategies (Protective Practices)’ summarised coping behaviours that participants considered to be beneficial to their wellbeing, including spending time with family and friends, and the final theme, ‘Resilience Strategies (Attitudes)’, captured attitudes which protected against stress and burnout.ConclusionsThis study emphasised the need for further research the mechanisms of physician coping in the workplace and how we can capitalise on insights into physicians’ experiences of coping with system-level stressors to develop interventions to improve resilience.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3541-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PTTSs can improve patient safety and quality of care. However, there is a need for a robust implementation strategy or the benefits of PTTSs will not be realized.

Junior doctors are regularly carrying out tasks related to end of life care, resulting in high levels of psychological distress. Further training and a change in culture are required.

Purpose of the studyTo examine junior doctors’ experience and perceptions of medical errors in which they had been involved.Study designA mixed-methods design, consisting of an error survey and critical incident technique (CIT) interviews, was used. The survey asked doctors in the first year of postgraduate training in Ireland whether they had made a medical error that had ‘played on (their) mind’, and if so, to identify factors that had contributed to the error. The participants in the CIT interviews were asked to describe a medical error in which they had been involved.ResultsA total of 201 out of 332 (60.5%) respondents to the survey reported making an error that ‘played on their mind’. 'Individual factors’ were the most commonly identified group of factors (188/201; 93.5%), with ‘high workload’ (145/201; 72.1%) the most commonly identified contributory factor. Of the 28 CIT interviews which met the criteria for analysis, ‘situational factors’ (team, staff, task characteristics, and service user factors) were the most commonly identified group of contributory factors (24/28; 85.7%). A total of eight of the interviews were judged by subject matter experts (n=8) to be of medium risk to patients, and 20 to be of high-risk to patients. A significantly larger proportion of high-risk scenarios were attributed to ‘local working conditions’ than the medium-risk scenarios.ConclusionsThere is a need to prepare junior doctors to manage, and cope with, medical error and to ensure that healthcare professionals are adequately supported throughout their careers.