UNASSIGNED: Unprofessional behaviour in healthcare systems can negatively impact staff well-being, patient safety and organisational costs. Unprofessional behaviour encompasses a range of behaviours, including incivility, microaggressions, harassment and bullying. Despite efforts to combat unprofessional behaviour in healthcare settings, it remains prevalent. Interventions to reduce unprofessional behaviour in health care have been conducted - but how and why they may work is unclear. Given the complexity of the issue, a realist review methodology is an ideal approach to examining unprofessional behaviour in healthcare systems.
UNASSIGNED: To improve context-specific understanding of how, why and in what circumstances unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute healthcare settings occur and evidence of strategies implemented to mitigate, manage and prevent them.
UNASSIGNED: Realist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards reporting guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Literature sources for building initial theories were identified from the original proposal and from informal searches of various websites. For theory refinement, we conducted systematic and purposive searches for peer-reviewed literature on databases such as EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and MEDLINE databases as well as for grey literature. Searches were conducted iteratively from November 2021 to December 2022.
UNASSIGNED: Initial theory-building drew on 38 sources. Searches resulted in 2878 titles and abstracts. In total, 148 sources were included in the review. Terminology and definitions used for unprofessional behaviours were inconsistent. This may present issues for policy and practice when trying to identify and address unprofessional behaviour. Contributors of unprofessional behaviour can be categorised into four areas: (1) workplace disempowerment, (2) organisational uncertainty, confusion and stress, (3) (lack of) social cohesion and (4) enablement of harmful cultures that tolerate unprofessional behaviours. Those at most risk of experiencing unprofessional behaviour are staff from a minoritised background. We identified 42 interventions in the literature to address unprofessional behaviour. These spanned five types: (1) single session (i.e. one-off), (2) multiple sessions, (3) single or multiple sessions combined with other actions (e.g. training session plus a code of conduct), (4) professional accountability and reporting interventions and (5) structured culture-change interventions. We identified 42 reports of interventions, with none conducted in the United Kingdom. Of these, 29 interventions were evaluated, with the majority (n = 23) reporting some measure of effectiveness. Interventions drew on 13 types of behaviour-change strategy designed to, for example: change social norms, improve awareness of unprofessional behaviour, or redesign the workplace. Interventions were impacted by 12 key dynamics, including focusing on individuals, lack of trust in management and non-existent logic models.
UNASSIGNED: Workplace disempowerment and organisational barriers are primary contributors to unprofessional behaviour. However, interventions predominantly focus on individual education or training without addressing systemic, organisational issues. Effectiveness of interventions to improve staff well-being or patient safety is uncertain. We provide 12 key dynamics and 15 implementation principles to guide organisations.
UNASSIGNED: Interventions need to: (1) be tested in a United Kingdom context, (2) draw on behavioural science principles and (3) target systemic, organisational issues.
UNASSIGNED: This review focuses on interpersonal staff-to-staff unprofessional behaviour, in acute healthcare settings only and does not include non-intervention literature outside the United Kingdom or outside of health care.
UNASSIGNED: This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO CRD42021255490. The record is available from: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131606) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
For this study, we asked: how, why and in what situations can unprofessional behaviour between healthcare staff working in acute care (usually hospitals) be reduced, managed and prevented? We wanted to research how people understand unprofessional behaviour, explore the circumstances leading to unprofessional behaviour and understand how existing approaches to addressing unprofessional behaviour worked (or did not work) across staff groups and acute healthcare organisations. We used a literature review method called a ‘realist review’, which differs from other review methods. A realist review focuses on understanding not only if interventions work but how and why they work, and for whom. This allowed us to analyse a wider range of relevant international literature – not only academic papers. We found 148 sources, which were relevant either because they described unprofessional behaviour or because they provided information on how to address unprofessional behaviour. Definitions of unprofessional behaviour varied, making it difficult to settle on one description. For example, unprofessional behaviour may involve incivility, bullying, harassment and/or microaggressions. We examined what might contribute to unprofessional behaviour and identified factors including uncertainty in the working environment. We found no United Kingdom-based interventions and only one from the United States of America that sought to reduce unprofessional behaviour towards minority groups. Strategies often tried to encourage staff to speak up, provide ways to report unprofessional behaviour or set social standards of behaviour. We also identified factors that may make it challenging for organisations to successfully select, implement and evaluate an intervention to address unprofessional behaviour. We recommend a system-wide approach to addressing unprofessional behaviour, including assessing the context and then implementing multiple approaches over a long time (rather than just once), because they are likely to have greater impact on changing culture. We are producing an implementation guide to support this process. Interventions need to enhance staff ability to feel safe at work, work effectively and support those more likely to experience unprofessional behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID (LC) occurs when people experience symptoms for weeks, months or even years after a COVID-19 infection. This review looks at research exploring the LC definitions, prevalence, symptoms, risk factors, and associated impacts in research on healthcare workers (HCWs).
METHODS: We systematically searched five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo and PubMed) and compiled a narrative literature review based on 56 relevant studies.
RESULTS: LC is prevalent among HCWs who become infected by COVID-19. Many of the most frequent symptoms associated with LC in the general population are also reported among HCWs. Some risk factors for LC are also similar to those in the general population, such as female sex, older age, and having a pre-existing respiratory illness.
RESULTS: The mechanism(s) responsible for LC remains unknown. A variety of terms, timeframes and symptoms are used to define LC, creating difficulties in comparing results across studies. Much of the research is cross-sectional and fails to explore the impacts that prolonged symptoms have on HCWs\' personal and professional lives.
CONCLUSIONS: The need to support HCWs with LC is clear. Identifying the mechanism(s) responsible for LC is a key priority, as this will inform treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research should move towards a standard definition for LC. Greater attention should be paid to longitudinal and qualitative studies, which could give insights into prognosis, lived experience and work participation. Finally, studies evaluating treatments suitable for people with LC are timely.

Objectives. Healthcare systems all over the world are increasingly alarmed by the prevalence of workplace violence (WPV) directed at healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the aim of the current review was to investigate the factors associated with WPV against HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. This study was conducted in December 2021. Four international databases along with two Iranian databases were searched. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement served as the foundation for the reporting procedure. Results. A total of 13 articles were included in the analysis. Results showed that females are less at risk of WPV (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.67, 0.84], p = 0.000 based on a fixed-effects model). Moreover, significant association was found between education level (OR 1.09, 95% CI [1.05, 1.14]), age (correlation = 0.025, 95% CI [0.014, 0.036]) and work experience (correlation = 0.028, 95% CI [0.016, 0.016]) and WPV. Conclusion. The primary factors linked to WPV exposure were found to be gender, education level, age and work experience. Additional research is necessary to provide more accurate and detailed data.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the access and delivery of healthcare services, posing unprecedented challenges to healthcare staff worldwide. Frontline healthcare staff faced unique stressors and challenges that impact their well-being and patient care. This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of frontline ED healthcare staff on emergency care services during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing valuable insights into the challenges, adaptations, and lessons learned in delivering emergency care.
METHODS: This study utilized a qualitative approach. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 ED healthcare staff from three different hospitals located in Turkey between 15/03/2022 and 30/04/2022. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants. The duration of the interviews ranged from 28 to 37 min. Data saturation was reached as no new information was gathered. The data were analyzed using the thematic analysis method. NVivo software was used to manage the data analysis process. Member check was carried out to ensure that the generated themes conformed to the participants\' views.
RESULTS: 15 sub-themes under three themes emerged: (1) the impact of COVID-19 on emergency care services, including sub-themes of \"introducing a COVID-19 unit in the ED\", \"changes in the routine functioning of EDs\", \"changes in the number of ED visits\", \"quality of care\", \"resources\", and \"increased workload\"; (2) the psychological effects of COVID-19 on ED healthcare staff, including sub-themes of \"staying away from family\", \"fear\", \"society\'s perspective on healthcare professionals\", \"morale-staff burnout\", \"psychological and emotional effects\", and \"unable to receive sufficient support\"; and (3) the difficulties faced by ED healthcare staff, including sub-themes of \"difficult working conditions\", \"community-based effects difficulties\", and \"COVID-19 is an unknown situation\".
CONCLUSIONS: Staff burnout threatens the quality of patient care and staff retention, and therefore this should be addressed by ED directors and leaders. This study could inform appropriate stakeholders regarding lessons learned from COVID-19 to better manage future pandemics. Learning from such lived experiences and developing appropriate interventions to minimize the difficulties faced during COVID-19 would allow better management of future pandemics. This study calls for a reform to address the challenges faced by healthcare staff, improve the overall response to public health crises, and enhance the resilience of healthcare systems for future crises.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that healthcare workers are at greater risk for suicide than other occupations, but most published studies focus on physicians. This study examines the prevalence of suicidal ideation (SI) and associated occupational factors among a broad group of non-physician healthcare staff.
METHODS: An anonymous online survey was sent to a random sample of 30 % of non-physician healthcare staff at a large urban healthcare system between September and November 2022. Weighted multivariable binary logistic regressions were conducted to determine the workplace and mental health factors associated with SI.
RESULTS: The 1084 respondents included nurses, administrative staff, research staff, medical assistants, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other roles. Of the sample, 8.8 % endorsed having SI over the prior two weeks. Results of the regression indicated that, after adjusting for demographic factors, greater odds of SI were associated with physical violence experienced from a patient or visitor (odds ratio [OR] = 2.15, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-4.37), lower perceived leadership support (OR = 0.95, 95 % CI = 0.92-0.98), and positive screening for depression (OR = 4.66, 95 % CI = 2.45-8.86). Exploratory analysis suggests that depression may be a mediating factor between workplace stressors and SI.
CONCLUSIONS: Limitations include the response rate, the use of a single item to assess SI, and the cross-sectional design.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that workplace violence and leadership support are important occupational factors associated with SI among healthcare workers. Reducing and mitigating workplace violence, enhancing leadership support, and improving access to mental health care should be considered targets for interventions to decrease suicide risk in this population.

The primary goal of the present study is to inspect the plausible job-related (i.e., challenge stressors and role blurring) and individual factors (i.e., fatigue and insomnia) that potentially lead to work-related cognitive failures among healthcare staff. Through the judgmental sampling technique, data was collected from healthcare personnel in Iran. The results revealed that challenge stressors in the form of time pressure, job responsibility, and work overload are significantly related to role blurring. Moreover, role blurring increases fatigue and insomnia among medical staff, and both insomnia and fatigue cause workplace cognitive failure. The results also confirm the mediation effect of role blurring in the association between challenge stressors, insomnia, and fatigue. According to the results, insomnia and fatigue similarly mediate the role blurring on workplace cognitive failure association. Theoretical implications, useful suggestions for practitioners, and prospective research avenues are debated in the study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted various aspects of healthcare services, including emergency care services. Healthcare staff face mental issues and physical exertion when caring for patients potentially infected with COVID-19. Understanding the experiences and perspectives of emergency department (ED) healthcare staff during the COVID-19 pandemic is essential to inform evidence-based interventions and strategies to mitigate the impact on emergency care services. This study aims to investigate the experiences of ED healthcare staff regarding emergency care services during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus providing valuable insights into the challenges faced.
METHODS: This study utilized a cross-sectional study design. Data were collected from 256 ED healthcare staff working in nine different hospitals located in Turkey between November 15, 2021, and December 30, 2021. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 256 participants were included in the study. Of the participants, 58.6% were nurses, 19.5% were ED doctors, and 21.9% were emergency medical technicians. In addition, 67.2% of the participants were infected with COVID-19, and almost all of them (94.1%) were psychologically affected by the pandemic process. It was found that 85.2% of ED healthcare staff felt excluded by society due to being healthcare staff and 71.9% had to be separated from their families. Nurses were separated from their families at the highest rate (78%) during this period.
CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the ED healthcare staff had problems accessing protective equipment and were separated from their families during the pandemic due to the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Although the number of ED visits decreased because of restrictions at the beginning of the pandemic, ED visits increased again with the abolition of restrictions.

Background: Healthcare staff represent a high-risk group for mental health difficulties as a result of their role during the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of wellbeing initiatives have been implemented to support this population, but remain largely untested in terms of their impact on both the recipients and providers of supports.Objective: To examine the experience of staff support providers in delivering psychological initiatives to healthcare staff, as well as obtain feedback on their perceptions of the effectiveness of different forms of support.Method: A mixed methods design employing a quantitative survey and qualitative focus group methodologies. An opportunity sample of 84 psychological therapists providing psychological supports to Northern Ireland healthcare staff participated in an online survey. Fourteen providers took part in two focus groups.Results: The majority of providers rated a number of supports as useful (e.g. staff wellbeing helplines, Hospital In-reach) and found the role motivating and satisfying. Thematic analysis yielded five themes related to provision of support: (1) Learning as we go, applying and altering the response; (2) The \'call to arms\', identity and trauma in the collective response; (3) Finding the value; (4) The experience of the new role; and (5) Moving forward.Conclusions: While delivering supports was generally a positive experience for providers, adaptation to the demands of this role was dependent upon important factors (e.g. clinical experience) that need to be considered in the planning phase. Robust guidance should be developed that incorporates such findings to ensure effective evidence-based psychological supports are available for healthcare staff during and after the pandemic.
Providers of wellbeing supports to healthcare staff during COVID-19 viewed them as useful and the role satisfying.Key factors (e.g. clinical experience) should be considered to make the role manageable.Guidance should be developed to ensure appropriate supports are delivered.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increased clinician awareness of systemic racism, lack of substantial action toward antiracism exists within health care. Clinical staff perspectives, particularly those of racial-ethnic minorities/persons of color (POC) who disproportionately occupy support staff roles with less power on the team, can yield insights into barriers to progress and can inform future efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI, also referred to as EDI) within health care settings. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of staff members on race and role power dynamics within community health clinic teams.
METHODS: We conducted semistructured 45-minute interviews with staff members working in community health clinics in a large urban health care system from May to July 2021. We implemented purposeful recruitment to oversample POC and support staff and to achieve equal representation from the 13 community health clinics in the system. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed over 6 months using a critical-ideological paradigm. Themes reflecting experiences related to race and role power dynamics were identified.
RESULTS: Our cohort had 60 participants: 42 (70%) were support staff (medical assistants, front desk clerks, care navigators, nurses) and 18 (30%) were clinicians and clinic leaders. The large majority of participants were aged 26 to 40 years (60%), were female (83%), and were POC (68%). Five themes emerged: (1) POC face hidden challenges, (2) racial discrimination persists, (3) power dynamics perpetuate inaction, (4) interpersonal actions foster safety and equity, and (5) system-level change is needed for cultural shift.
CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the race and role power dynamics within care teams, including experiences of staff members with less power, is critical to advancing DEI in health care.

Background: There has been growing concern regarding increasing levels of post-traumatic stress (PTS) symptoms experienced by healthcare workers (HCW) in the UK, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic.Objectives: PTS symptom typologies have been investigated in other adult populations using person-centred latent variable approaches, revealing profiles showing differing symptom levels and patterns. We aimed to explore typologies among clinical and non-clinical healthcare staff to elucidate heterogeneity of presentation.  Methods: This was a retrospective study using referral data from treatment-seeking healthcare staff in the North of England (N = 1600). We employed latent profile analysis using the PTSD International Trauma Questionnaire domains as profile indicators. We included covariates relating to role-type, depression, anxiety and mental health concerns before March of 2020.   Results: A model with six profiles fit the data best. Profile names were given as follows: \'No symptom\'; \'Low symptom\'; \'Low symptom (moderate Sense of current threat (Th_dx) and Functional impairment (FI))\'; \'Moderate symptom (low Th_dx and high Avoidance (Av_dx))\'; \'Moderate symptom\'; and \'High symptom\'. Covariates were shown to have differential predictive power on profile membership. Conclusions: The finding of profiles with pattern differences suggests a need for both differential and specifically targeted treatments, as well as a consideration of early intervention for those individuals with subclinical PTS symptoms. As expected, anxiety and depression were both predictors of several of the symptomatic profiles, with anxiety producing a larger effect. Further research is required to fully understand the link between role-type and PTS symptom typologies among HCW. .
Six distinct profiles of post-traumatic stress symptoms were found in treatment-seeking healthcare staff.Four of the profiles differed only in terms of severity of symptoms. Two of the profiles revealed pattern differences relating to differing severity across avoidance, sense of current threat and functional impairment.Working in a non-clinical role (e.g. hospital porter or admin staff) predicted membership of two of the moderate symptom profiles.Other mental health difficulties, anxiety and depression, predicted membership of several symptomatic profiles.