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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Caring for Caregivers: System-Level Solutions to Moral Injury in Burn Teams.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Review
- A Cross-Sectional Study on Healthcare Providers' Perceived Compassion and Emotional Exhaustion Across Five Acute Geriatric Units: The Importance of Mutual Respect and Open Reflection.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Navigating existential conversations about life and death with families in paediatric palliative care: a qualitative interview study with healthcare professionals.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Sacred Moments in Healthcare: An Evidence-Based Conceptual Model.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Review
- Keep going-until someone is concerned: trauma in waiting among ICU healthcare professionals.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Background characteristics and burnout of Japanese resident physicians who did and did not share voluntary clinical cases.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- We watched him die without oxygen: reflections and responses on moral injury among research staff in LMIC hospitals.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Final costs: The emotional impact of providing end-of-life care.Future healthcare journal · 2026Article
- Exploring factors that contribute to the successful implementation of Schwartz Rounds in higher education institutions.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Burnout, PTSD, and Medical Error: The Medico-Legal Implications of the Mental Health Crisis Among Frontline Healthcare Professionals During COVID-19.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Exploring 'MoyaMoya': a multidisciplinary case study workshop on emotional conflicts in clinical practice.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2026Article
- Exploring How Intent of Self-Harm Affects Trainee Healthcare Practitioners' Views, Attitudes and Clinical Decision-Making in Northwest England: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- The effect of nurses' professional quality of life on attitudes toward organ donation: a structural equation modeling approach.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- How faculty with critical care specialties learn in a university hospital: a qualitative phenomenological study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Team Time as a wellbeing intervention for NHS staff: a qualitative evaluation of implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Using Positive Deviance to Enhance HIV Care Retention in South Africa: Development of a Compassion-Focused Programme to Improve the Staff and Patient Experience.Research square · 2024Article
- Mental health stigma in the medical profession: Where do we go from here?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.