Empowering healthcare professionals to return to work through simulation training: addressing psychosocial needs

Saunders, Aleks; Brooks, John M.; Alami, Wathik El; Jabur, Zainab; Laws-Chapman, Colette; Schilderman, Marcella; Tooley, Camilla; Attoe, Chris

doi:10.1136/bmjstel-2019-000566

Cited by 4 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirteen studies showed risk of analysis bias due to either descriptive analysis or insufficient description of analyses 4 12 32 35 37 39 43–48. Only six studies demonstrated reflexivity on the role of the researchers, particularly regarding their relationships with participants 29–31 33 34 44. Publication bias is unlikely in this sample as qualitative studies were high quality, exploratory studies did not yield positive or negative findings, and studies reported resources during absence and RTW as well as needs and barriers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Twenty studies had risk of selection bias, including self-selecting samples and non-blinded recruitment 4 12 29–46. Fourteen studies had risk of recall bias, due to reliance on self-report retrospective data collection 4 12 30–32 37–43 45 46.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen studies had risk of recall bias, due to reliance on self-report retrospective data collection 4 12 30–32 37–43 45 46. Twelve studies had risk of measurement bias, using de novo surveys lacking validity and reliability, and qualitative methods lacking adequate description 4 12 32 36 37 39–45. Thirteen studies showed risk of analysis bias due to either descriptive analysis or insufficient description of analyses 4 12 32 35 37 39 43–48.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twelve studies had risk of measurement bias, using de novo surveys lacking validity and reliability, and qualitative methods lacking adequate description 4 12 32 36 37 39–45. Thirteen studies showed risk of analysis bias due to either descriptive analysis or insufficient description of analyses 4 12 32 35 37 39 43–48. Only six studies demonstrated reflexivity on the role of the researchers, particularly regarding their relationships with participants 29–31 33 34 44.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen studies found personal needs relating to WLB 4 12 30 32–35 37–39 41–46 49. Nine studies highlighted the need to consider career development, progression and drive in light of returning from absence, which can cause concern for returners 12 32–34 37–39 41 42.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Returning to clinical work and doctors’ personal, social and organisational needs: a systematic review

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to synthesise existing evidence on doctors’ personal, social and organisational needs when returning to clinical work after an absence.DesignSystematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesAMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO and PubMed were searched up to 4 June 2020. Non-database searches included references and citations of identified articles and pages 1–10 of Google and Google Scholar.Eligibility criteriaIncluded studies presented quantitative or qualitative data collected from doctors returning to work, with findings relating to personal, social or organisational needs.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using a piloted template. Risk of bias assessment used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument or Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist. Data were not suitable for meta-analyses and underwent narrative synthesis due to varied study designs and mixed methods.ResultsTwenty-four included studies (14 quantitative, 10 qualitative) presented data from 92 692 doctors in the UK (n=13), US (n=4), Norway (n=3), Japan (n=2), Spain (n=1), Canada (n=1). All studies identified personal needs, categorised as work–life balance, emotional regulation, self-perception and identity, and engagement with return process. Seventeen studies highlighted social needs relating to professional culture, personal and professional relationships, and illness stigma. Organisational needs found in 22 studies were flexibility and job control, work design, Occupational Health services and organisational culture. Emerging resources and recommendations were highlighted. Variable quality and high risk of biases in data collection and analysis suggest cautious interpretation.ConclusionsThis review posits a foundational framework of returning doctors’ needs, requiring further developed through methodologically robust studies that assess the impact of length and reason for absence, before developing and evaluating tailored interventions. Organisations, training programmes and professional bodies should refine support for returning doctors based on evidence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%