Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30341142›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews.

Cath Taylor, Andreas Xyrichis, Mary C Leamy, Ellie Reynolds, Jill Maben

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewScoping Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
20.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Caring for Caregivers: System-Level Solutions to Moral Injury in Burn Teams.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sacred Moments in Healthcare: An Evidence-Based Conceptual Model.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cath TaylorSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6239-4744
Andreas XyrichisFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing , Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2359-4337
Mary C LeamyFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing , Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Ellie ReynoldsFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing , Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Jill MabenSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/07/49
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds.

designSystematic review of Rounds literature; scoping reviews of comparator interventions (action learning sets; after action reviews; Balint groups; caregiver support programme; clinical supervision; critical incident stress debriefing; mindfulness-based stress reduction; peer-supported storytelling; psychosocial intervention training; reflective practice groups; resilience training). DATA SOURCES: PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English.

resultsThe overall evidence base for Rounds is limited. We developed a composite definition to aid comparison with other interventions from 41 documents containing a definition of Rounds. Twelve (10 studies) were empirical evaluations. All were of low/moderate quality (weak study designs including lack of control groups). Findings showed the value of Rounds to attenders, with a self-reported positive impact on individuals, their relationships with colleagues and patients and wider cultural changes. The evidence for the comparative interventions was scant and also low/moderate quality. Some features of Rounds were shared by other interventions, but Rounds offer unique features including being open to all staff and having no expectation for verbal contribution by attenders.

conclusionsEvidence of effectiveness for all interventions considered here remains limited. Methods that enable identification of core features related to effectiveness are needed to optimise benefit for individual staff members and organisations as a whole. A systems approach conceptualising workplace well-being arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the well-being of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff well-being.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsBurnout, ProfessionalHealth PersonnelHumansJob SatisfactionOccupational StressPatient Care TeamTeaching RoundsWorkplacecompassionoccupational stressreflectionschwartz roundsstaff wellbeingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30341142
PMCPMC6196967
OpenAlexW2896173285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.