Search

Physician wellness is critical for patient safety and quality of care. Coaching has been successfully and widely applied across many industries to enhance well-being but has only recently been considered for physicians. This review aimed to summarize the existing evidence on the effect of coaching by trained coaches on physician well-being, distress and burnout. MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched without language restrictions to December 21, 2022. Studies of any design were included if they involved physicians of any specialty undergoing coaching by trained coaches and assessed at least one measure along the wellness continuum. Pairs of independent reviewers determined reference eligibility. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and for Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in study design and outcome measures as well as inconsistent reporting. The search retrieved 2531 references, of which 14 were included (5 RCTs, 2 non-randomized controlled studies, 4 before-and-after studies, 2 mixed-methods studies, 1 qualitative study). There were 1099 participants across all included studies. Risk of bias was moderate or serious for non-RCTs, while the 5 RCTs were of lower risk. All quantitative studies reported effectiveness of coaching for at least one outcome assessed. The included qualitative study reported a perceived positive impact of coaching by participants. Evidence from available RCTs suggests coaching for physicians can improve well-being and reduce distress/burnout. Non-randomized interventional studies have similar findings but face many limitations. Consistent reporting and standardized outcome measures are needed.

BackgroundEffective teamwork is critical for safe, high-quality care in the operating room (OR); however, teamwork interventions have not consistently resulted in the expected gains for patient safety or surgical culture. In order to optimize OR teamwork in a targeted and evidence-based manner, it is first necessary to conduct a comprehensive, theory-informed assessment of barriers and enablers from an interprofessional perspective.MethodsThis qualitative study was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Volunteer, purposive and snowball sampling were conducted primarily across four sites in Ontario, Canada and continued until saturation was reached. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified. Directed content analysis was conducted in duplicate using the TDF as the initial coding framework. Codes were then refined whereby similar codes were grouped into larger categories of meaning within each TDF domain, resulting in a list of domain-specific barriers and enablers.ResultsA total of 66 OR healthcare professionals participated in the study (19 Registered Nurses, two Registered Practical Nurses, 17 anaesthesiologists, 26 surgeons, two perfusionists). The most frequently identified teamwork enablers included people management, shared definition of teamwork, communication strategies, positive emotions, familiarity with team members, and alignment of teamwork with professional role. The most frequently identified teamwork barriers included others' personalities, gender, hierarchies, resource issues, lack of knowledge of best practices for teamwork, negative emotions, conflicting norms and perceptions across professions, being unfamiliar with team members, and on-call/night shifts.ConclusionsWe identified key factors influencing OR teamwork from an interprofessional perspective using a theoretically informed and systematic approach. Our findings reveal important targets for future interventions and may ultimately increase their effectiveness. Specifically, achieving optimal teamwork in the OR may require a multi-level intervention that addresses individual, team and systems-level factors with particular attention to complex social and professional hierarchies.

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.