Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Exploring the adoption of Schwartz Center Rounds as an organisational innovation to improve staff well-being in England, 2009-2015
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. IMPROVE (Improvement, innovation, and leadership in health and welfare). Florence Nightingale, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College, London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8781-6675
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: BMJ Open, ISSN 2044-6055, E-ISSN 2044-6055, Vol. 7, no 1, article id e014326Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: Schwartz Center Rounds ('Rounds') are a multidisciplinary forum in which healthcare staff within an organisation discuss the psychological, emotional and social challenges associated with their work in a confidential and safe environment. Implemented in over 375 North American organisations, since 2009, they have been increasingly adopted in England. This study aimed to establish how many and what types of organisations have adopted Rounds in England, and to explore why they did so.

Setting: Public healthcare organisations in England.

Participants: Secondary data analysis was used to map and profile all 116 public healthcare organisations that had adopted Rounds in England by July 2015. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 45 Round coordinators within adopting organisations.

Results: The rate of adoption increased after a major national report in 2013. Rounds were typically adopted in order to improve staff well-being. Adopting organisations scored better on staff engagement than non-adopters; among adopting organisations, those performing better on patient experience were more likely to adopt earlier. Most adoption decision-making processes were straightforward. A confluence of factors-a generally favourable set of innovation attributes (including low cost), advocacy from opinion leaders in different professional networks, active dissemination by change agents and a felt need to be seen to be addressing staff well-being-initially led to Rounds being seen as 'an idea whose time had come'. More recent adoption patterns have been shaped by the timing of charitable and other agency funding in specific geographical areas and sectors, as well as several forms of 'mimetic pressure'.

Conclusions: The innate attributes of Rounds, favourable circumstances and the cumulative impact of a sequence of distinct informal and formal social processes have shaped the pattern of their adoption in England.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2017. Vol. 7, no 1, article id e014326
Keywords [en]
adoption, data analysis, England, funding, health care organization, human, human experiment, leadership, organization, staff, telephone interview, wellbeing, emotion, empathy, group process, health care delivery, health care personnel, health personnel attitude, health service, interview, psychology, public relations, social support, Attitude of Health Personnel, Delivery of Health Care, Emotions, Group Processes, Health Personnel, Health Services, Health Services Administration, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Interviews as Topic, Organizational Innovation
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-38563DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014326ISI: 000395590300173Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85009088568Local ID: HHJIMPROVEISOAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-38563DiVA, id: diva2:1174618
Available from: 2018-01-16 Created: 2018-01-16 Last updated: 2018-01-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Robert, Glenn

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Robert, Glenn
By organisation
The Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and WelfareHHJ. IMPROVE (Improvement, innovation, and leadership in health and welfare)
In the same journal
BMJ Open
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 5 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf