Search

Background: Although there is a demonstrated need for peer support programs for healthcare workers like Resilience In Stressful Events, little is known about their utilization. This study evaluated awareness and utilization of Resilience In Stressful Events among nurses at one teaching hospital; perceptions of program benefits; and resilience, burnout, and job satisfaction among Resilience In Stressful Events users versus non-users. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys of staff nurses and nurse leaders. Pearson Chi-Square tests and logistic regressions were used to establish significant differences. Results: There were 337 responses (response rate 8.3%) from staff nurses. Awareness of Resilience In Stressful Events was 87%, but there was limited Resilience In Stressful Events activation for oneself (23%) or others (6%). Among recent users (n = 30), 47% reported that Resilience In Stressful Events improved their ability to work with confidence, 65% felt better after using Resilience In Stressful Events, and 70% found the program helpful. Among non-users, 39% wished they had used Resilience In Stressful Events and 34% wished they had activated Resilience In Stressful Events on behalf of a colleague. Nurses who used Resilience In Stressful Events reported more burnout and greater resilience than those who had not, but similar job satisfaction. There were 75 responses from nurse leaders (response rate 69%), 93% of whom were aware of Resilience In Stressful Events; 56% had activated Resilience In Stressful Events. Eighty percent reported Resilience In Stressful Events was personally helpful and 68% reported the program was helpful for their staff. Nurse leaders who activated Resilience In Stressful Events were more resilient than those who had not, but similar in burnout and job satisfaction. Conclusions: Nurses indicated favorable perceptions of using Resilience In Stressful Events, and its utilization was associated with greater resilience but higher burnout in frontline nurses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose While there is growing attention to making health care safer, there has been less emphasis on helping health care workers to cope with stressful patient related events (these workers are commonly referred to as second victims). We used the RISE (Resilience In Stressful Events) peer support program at the Johns Hopkins Hospital as a case study for evaluating effectiveness, and identifying barriers to addressing the needs of second victims. Design and Methods The study used a mixed-method approach that included: 1) quantitative analysis of surveys of health care workers in the Department of Pediatrics before RISE implementation and four years after, and 2) content analysis of open-ended commentaries about respondents' experience with seeking second victim support, as well as feedback on RISE. Results Survey response rates were 22.4% and 23.3% respectively. Quantitative analysis showed that respondents at the later time point were more likely to contact an organizational support structure, and had greater awareness of the availability of support. Respondents were very likely (93%) to recommend RISE to others. Content analysis identified barriers to using RISE: overcoming blame culture, need to promote the initiative, and need for more staff time to handle adverse events. Respondents reported varied preferences for the support format and specific support interventions. Conclusions The mixed-method approach allowed a comprehensive evaluation of RISE and provided some evidence for its effectiveness in supporting pediatric health care workers. Practice Implications The findings suggest an important role of organizational culture in second victim support program implementation and evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although there is increased awareness about healthcare workers' (HCWs') stress and burnout after the COVID-19 pandemic, support interventions should be tailored according to the needs of HCWs. Given the unique challenges rural HCWs face, we sought to systematically identify the types of interventions specifically designed and utilized to support the well-being of HCWs practicing in rural settings. Method: We conducted a comprehensive search of the existing literature through electronic databases to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies describing supportive interventions for rural HCWs with well-being-related outcomes between January 1, 2023 and March 31, 2023. We used the Effective Public Health Practice Project, Mixed Methods Assessment Tool, and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist to evaluate the study quality. Findings: Out of 1,583 identified records, 25 studies were included in the analysis. The studies described a wide range of supportive interventions and outcomes. The overall quality of the studies was weak to moderate. None of the studies were randomized and only six included controls. Included interventions were generally well- accepted. Quantitative and qualitative themes identified shared decision making, effective supervision, and proactive cultural change as promising interventions that warrant further exploration. Financial interventions alone were not effective. Most of the studies were either unfunded or were funded internally by the institutions. Conclusions: There is limited research in support interventions for rural HCWs. Larger, well-designed studies are needed to explore promising interventions to promote well-being of rural healthcare workforce. Public Significance Statement: This study highlights the needs for more supportive services to the healthcare workers in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]