Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34275468›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Realist evaluation of Schwartz rounds® for enhancing the delivery of compassionate healthcare: understanding how they work, for whom, and in what contexts.

J Maben, C Taylor, E Reynolds, I McCarthy, M Leamy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Healing Pandemic Learners: A Call To Action.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. A hospital-wide group approach to promote open dialogues of workplace issues and staff wellbeing with Schwartz Rounds.Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists · 2024
    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 4 institutions in 1 country.

J MabenSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Kate Granger Building, Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, GU2 7YH, UK. j.maben@surrey.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6168-0455
C TaylorSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Kate Granger Building, Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, GU2 7YH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-4744
E ReynoldsCAMERA Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, Faculty of Health, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 8AA, UK.
I McCarthyAston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4715-9831
M LeamyCare of Long term Conditions Research Division, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, James Clerk Maxwell building, Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8WA, UK.
University of Surrey · GBAston University · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

Health Services and Delivery Research Programme HS&DR - 13/07/49
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare work is known to be stressful and challenging, and there are recognised links between the psychological health of staff and high-quality patient care. Schwartz Center Rounds® (Rounds) were developed to support healthcare staff to re-connect with their values through peer reflection, and to promote more compassionate patient care. Research to date has focussed on self-report surveys that measure satisfaction with Rounds but provide little analysis of how Rounds 'work' to produce their reported outcomes, how differing contexts may impact on this, nor make explicit the underlying theories in the conceptualisation and implementation of Rounds.

methodsRealist evaluation methods aimed to identify how Rounds work, for whom and in what contexts to deliver outcomes. We interviewed 97 key informants: mentors, facilitators, panellists and steering group members, using framework analysis to organise and analyse our data using realist logic. We identified mechanisms by which Rounds lead to outcomes, and contextual factors that impacted on this relationship, using formal theory to explain these findings.

resultsFour stages of Rounds were identified. We describe how, why and for whom Schwartz Rounds work through the relationships between nine partial programme theories. These include: trust safety and containment; group interaction; counter-cultural/3rd space for staff; self-disclosure; story-telling; role modelling vulnerability; contextualising patients and staff; shining a spotlight on hidden stories and roles; and reflection and resonance. There was variability in the way Rounds were run across organisations. Attendance for some staff was difficult. Rounds is likely to be a 'slow intervention' the impact of which develops over time. We identified the conditions needed for Rounds to work optimally. These contextual factors influence the intensity and therefore degree to which the key ingredients of Rounds (mechanisms) are activated along a continuum, to produce outcomes. Outcomes included: greater tolerance, empathy and compassion for self and others; increased honesty, openness, and resilience; improved teamwork and organisational change.

conclusionsWhere optimally implemented, Rounds provide staff with a safe, reflective and confidential space to talk and support one another, the consequences of which include increased empathy and compassion for colleagues and patients, and positive changes to practice.

Indexed as

EmpathyTeaching RoundsDelivery of Health CareHumansOrganizational InnovationPatient CareCompassionCompassionate careEmotional impactEmpathy; culture changeHealthcare professionalsReflectionSchwartz roundsStaff experiencesStaff well-being

Identifiers

PMID34275468
PMCPMC8286624
OpenAlexW3171459725

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.