A systematic review of workplace triggers of emotions in the healthcare environment, the emotions experienced, and the impact on patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare staff deliver patient care in emotionally charged settings and experience a wide range of emotions as part of their work. These emotions and emotional contexts can impact the quality and safety of care. Despite the growing acknowledgement of the important role of emotion, we know very little about what triggers emotion within healthcare environments or the impact this has on patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies to explore the workplace triggers of emotions within the healthcare environment, the emotions experienced in response to these triggers, and the impact of triggers and emotions on patient safety. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Scopus, and CINAHL) to identify relevant literature. Studies were then selected and data synthesized in two stages. A quality assessment of the included studies at stage 2 was undertaken. RESULTS: In stage 1, 90 studies were included from which seven categories of triggers of emotions in the healthcare work environment were identified, namely: patient and family factors, patient safety events and their repercussions, workplace toxicity, traumatic events, work overload, team working and lack of supervisory support. Specific emotions experienced in response to these triggers (e.g., frustration, guilt, anxiety) were then categorised into four types: immediate, feeling states, reflective, and longer-term emotional sequelae. In stage 2, 13 studies that explored the impact of triggers or emotions on patient safety processes/outcomes were included. CONCLUSION: The various triggers of emotion and the types of emotion experienced that have been identified in this review can be used as a framework for further work examining the role of emotion in patient safety. The findings from this review suggest that certain types of emotions (including fear, anger, and guilt) were more frequently experienced in response to particular categories of triggers and that healthcare staff's experiences of negative emotions can have negative effects on patient care, and ultimately, patient safety. This provides a basis for developing and tailoring strategies, interventions, and support mechanisms for dealing with and regulating emotions in the healthcare work environment.

Caring in a crisis: Understanding the stressors and uplifts for National Health Service frontline staff through the lens of clinical psychologists.

The unprecedented public health crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a significant challenge to the delivery of healthcare that has rarely been experienced before. The stress already faced by healthcare staff working in the National Health Service (NHS) has been further exacerbated during Covid-19, putting them at risk of adverse mental health outcomes. Through the lens of clinical psychologists who had provided support to frontline healthcare staff during the Covid-19 pandemic, this study aimed to better understand the stressors and uplifts healthcare staff experienced during Covid-19, the impact of these on the wellbeing of staff and patient care, and to examine the support needed to deal with the impact of a crisis. A qualitative study design using a combination of diaries followed by semi-structured interviews was utilised. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. The following five themes represented the stressors and uplifts experienced by NHS frontline healthcare staff during Covid-19, the impact on staff wellbeing and patient care: facing change; risks of working in the NHS environment; transcending the negatives; challenging professional values and haunted by patient deaths. The findings also highlight the importance of providing psychological support and suggest the need to continue to provide this support service to help NHS staff manage through subsequent waves of the pandemic. These findings can contribute towards both the management of the current Covid-19 pandemic and other similar crises in the future.

A qualitative, cross-cultural investigation into the impact of potentially traumatic work events on Saudi and UK ambulance personnel and how they cope.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common among ambulance personnel, but its prevalence varies between developed and developing countries. This study aimed to investigate the lived experience of potentially traumatic work events between Saudi and UK ambulance personnel. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 16 ambulance workers from Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom (8 participants from each country) were conducted to explore their lived experiences of potentially traumatic events at work. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified from interviews: (1) some events are inherently more stressful than others; (2) pressure of organizational and interpersonal stressors; (3) convergence and divergence in cross-cultural coping strategies; and (4) preferring formal and confidential support. CONCLUSIONS: There were differences in the nature of traumatic events and the ways of coping between the two cultures, but paramedics in both cultures had an agreement about their preference for individual and formal support. The results of this study may help inform the development of interventions and PTSD prevention programs for ambulance personnel.

Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: a guide to using a meta-ethnographic approach for literature synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative synthesis approaches are increasingly used in healthcare research. One of the most commonly utilised approaches is meta-ethnography. This is a systematic approach which synthesises data from multiple studies to enable new insights into patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences and perspectives. Meta-ethnographies can provide important theoretical and conceptual contributions and generate evidence for healthcare practice and policy. However, there is currently a lack of clarity and guidance surrounding the data synthesis stages and process. METHOD: This paper aimed to outline a step-by-step method for conducting a meta-ethnography with illustrative examples. RESULTS: A practical step-by-step guide for conducting meta-ethnography based on the original seven steps as developed by Noblit & Hare (Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies.,1998) is presented. The stages include getting started, deciding what is relevant to the initial interest, reading the studies, determining how the studies are related, translating the studies into one another, synthesising the translations and expressing the synthesis. We have incorporated adaptations and developments from recent publications. Annotations based on a previous meta-ethnography are provided. These are particularly detailed for stages 4-6, as these are often described as being the most challenging to conduct, but with the most limited amount of guidance available. CONCLUSION: Meta-ethnographic synthesis is an important and increasingly used tool in healthcare research, which can be used to inform policy and practice. The guide presented clarifies how the stages and processes involved in conducting a meta-synthesis can be operationalised.

The views and experiences of patients and health-care professionals on the disclosure of adverse events: A systematic review and qualitative meta-ethnographic synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature on the views and experiences of patients/family members and health-care professionals (HCPs) on the disclosure of adverse events. METHODS: Systematic review of qualitative studies. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Qualitative data were analysed using a meta-ethnographic approach, comprising reciprocal syntheses of 'patient' and 'health-care professional' studies, combined to form a lines-of-argument synthesis embodying both perspectives. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the final syntheses. The results highlighted that there is a difference in attitudes and expectations between patients and HCPs regarding the disclosure conversation. Patients/family members expressed a need for information, the importance of sincere regret and a promise of improvement. However, HCPs faced several barriers, which hindered appropriate disclosure practices. These included difficulty of disclosure in a blame culture, avoidance of litigation, lack of skills on how to conduct disclosure and inconsistent guidance. A lines-of-argument synthesis is presented that identified both the key elements of an ideal disclosure desired by patients and the facilitators for HCPs, which can increase the likelihood of this taking place. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients/family members and HCPs both advocate disclosure, several barriers prevent HCPs from conducting disclosure effectively. Both groups have different needs for disclosure. To meet patients' requirements, training on disclosure for HCPs and the development of an open, transparent culture within organizations are potential areas for intervention.