目的:评估以社区为基础的护士和助产士心理健康和福利计划。
方法:混合方法方案评估。
方法:纳入四项研究:健康观察性描述性研究(横断面调查),以前计划参与者的健康状况和经验(研究1);健康观察探索性前瞻性队列研究(纵向调查),从2020年至2023年参与该计划的参与者的福祉和经验(研究2);对作为参与者或临床医生参与该计划的护士和助产士的经验和看法进行定性描述性研究(访谈)(研究3);对计划利益相关者的经验和看法进行观察性描述性研究(横断面调查)(研究4)。调查包括经过验证的措施。数据是在线收集的。描述性的,进行了重复测量和专题分析。
结果:115名参与者完成了研究1:20%(n=23)报告了重度至极重度类别的压力;22%(n=25)报告了中度至重度类别的心理困扰。在研究2中跟踪了31名方案参与者:随着时间的推移,该方案对参与者福祉的影响并不显著。采访了16名计划参与者和8名计划临床医生(研究3)。参与该计划的护士和助产士的经验是非常积极的,该计划的重要属性包括:(1)临床医生和参与者的共同专业经验,支持共同语言并促进理解,(2)有效的方案领导,以及临床医生角色的自主性和灵活性,这使得并支持了积极的工作经验。39个更广泛的利益攸关方参加了一项横断面调查(研究4)。所有利益攸关方都报告对该方案非常满意。参与者认为该计划是由护士和助产士组成的,护士和助产士对该计划的成功和价值至关重要。
结论:制定了基于社区的心理健康和福祉计划,由护士和助产士领导和分娩,护士和助产士,是一种非常宝贵的资源。
结论:卫生人员的压力和倦怠水平很高。针对护士和助产士的基于社区的心理健康和福祉方案被认为是护士和助产士的重要和高度宝贵的资源。由护士和助产士提供的方案,护士和助产士,被认为是方案成功的关键。方案领导,以及计划临床医生角色的自主性和灵活性,促进和支持项目临床医生的积极工作经验。
病人护理的质量和安全直接受到护士和助产士的健康影响。针对护士和助产士的基于社区的心理健康和福祉方案被认为是护士和助产士的重要和高度宝贵的资源。
■调查结果是根据STROBE报告的(vonElm等人。在《柳叶刀》上,370:1453-1457,2007)和根据COREQ的定性发现(Tong等人。在国际医疗保健质量杂志上,19(6):349-357,2007)。
■没有患者或公众捐款。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a community-based psychological health and well-being programme for nurses and midwives.
METHODS: Mixed methods programme evaluation.
METHODS: Four studies were included: observational descriptive study (cross-sectional survey) of the health, well-being and experiences of previous programme participants (Study 1); observational exploratory prospective cohort study (longitudinal survey) of health, well-being and experiences of participants who engaged in the programme from 2020 to 2023 (Study 2); qualitative descriptive study (interviews) of experiences and perceptions of nurses and midwives who have engaged with the programme as participants or clinicians (Study 3); observational descriptive study (cross-sectional survey) of experiences and perceptions of programme stakeholders (Study 4). Surveys included validated measures. Data were collected online. Descriptive, repeated measures and thematic analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: One-hundred and fifteen participants completed Study 1: 20% (n = 23) reported stress in the severe-to-extremely severe category; 22% (n = 25) reported psychological distress in the moderate-to-severe category. Thirty-one programme participants were followed in Study 2: the effect of the programme on participant well-being over time was not significant. Sixteen programme participants and eight programme clinicians were interviewed (Study 3). Experiences of nurses and midwives engaging with the programme were highly positive and strong attributes of the programme included (1) shared professional experience of clinicians and participants which supported a common language and facilitated understanding, and (2) effective programme leadership, and autonomy and flexibility in the clinicians\' role which enabled and supported a positive working experience. Thirty-nine broader stakeholders participated in a cross-sectional survey (Study 4). All stakeholders reported high satisfaction with the programme. Participants considered the programme being \'by nurses and midwives, for nurses and midwives\' critical to the programme\'s success and value.
CONCLUSIONS: The community-based psychological health and well-being programme developed, led and delivered by nurses and midwives, for nurses and midwives, was a highly valued resource.
CONCLUSIONS: Levels of stress and burnout in the health workforce are high. A community-based psychological health and well-being programme for nurses and midwives was found to be an important and highly valued resource for nurses and midwives. A programme delivered by nurses and midwives, for nurses and midwives, was considered critical to programme success. Programme leadership, and autonomy and flexibility in the programme clinicians\' roles, facilitated and supported a positive working experience for programme clinicians.
UNASSIGNED: Quality and safety in patient care is directly impacted by the well-being of nurse and midwives. A community-based psychological health and well-being programme for nurses and midwives was found to be an important and highly valued resource for nurses and midwives.
UNASSIGNED: Survey findings were reported according to STROBE (von Elm et al. in Lancet, 370:1453-1457, 2007) and qualitative findings according to COREQ (Tong et al. in International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6):349-357, 2007).
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.