Curricula and methods for physician compassion training: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Compassionate patient care has been associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients. However, current evidence suggests that healthcare is experiencing a compassion crisis, with physicians frequently overlooking opportunities to treat patients with compassion. Although there is evidence that compassionate care can be enhanced through training interventions, it is currently unclear what specific skills and behaviours ought to be taught and how best to transfer this information to the learner. The objectives of this systematic review are to collate the world's literature on compassion training to determine (1) the specific skills and behaviours that should be taught (curriculum), and (2) the methods of training that are most effective at improving compassionate patient care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a qualitative systematic review of studies aimed at improving compassionate patient care among physicians and physicians in training. We will comprehensively search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional recommended techniques for systematic reviews of complex evidence will be performed including pursuing selected 'references of references', electronic citation tracking and consulting experts in the field. Two investigators will independently review all search results. After identification and inclusion of papers, we will use a standardised form for data extraction. We will use tables to describe the study populations, interventions tested (including specific skill/behaviours taught and training methods used), outcome measures and effects of interventions on outcome measures compared with control groups. Where appropriate, meta-analysis will be used for quantitative analysis of the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed systematic review does not require ethical approval since no individual patient-level data will be collected. Results of this study will contribute to the understanding of compassion training and help inform the development of compassion training curricula. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095040.

Early Interventions for the Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Survivors of Critical Illness: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Posttraumatic stress disorder among survivors of critical illness is of public health importance, as it is common and reduces patient quality of life. The objective of this systematic review was to collate the world's literature on interventions aimed at preventing posttraumatic stress disorder among survivors of critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinical trials registry platforms, with no restriction to language using a comprehensive strategy. STUDY SELECTION: Study inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) adult human subjects, 2) patients treated in an ICU setting, 3) intervention arm aimed at reducing posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, 4) use of a control arm, and 5) an outcome measure assessing development of acute stress or posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. DATA EXTRACTION: We performed a qualitative analysis to collate and summarize effects of identified interventions according to the recommended methodology from the Cochrane Handbook. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria. There was heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures used. All studies had some concern for risk of bias as per the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias. In eight of 12 studies (67%) testing early interventions (i.e., initiated in the ICU course) and one of five studies (20%) testing delayed interventions following ICU discharge, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms were decreased among the intervention group compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a paucity of high-quality clinical investigations, the preponderance of evidence to date suggests that 1) posttraumatic stress disorder among survivors of critical illness may be preventable and 2) early interventions may be the most effective.