Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695659›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Team Time as a wellbeing intervention for NHS staff: a qualitative evaluation of implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Magdalena Zasada, Suzanne van Even, Jill Maben, Jennifer Oates, Cath Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Magdalena ZasadaSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YS, UK. m.zasada@surrey.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4701-0359
Suzanne van EvenSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YS, UK.
Jill MabenSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6168-0455
Jennifer OatesSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7745-9539
Cath TaylorSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, 30 Priestley Road, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-4744

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupport for NHS staff was vital during the COVID-19 pandemic and Team Time was developed as an adaptation of Schwartz Rounds™ - a well-evidenced, facilitated group intervention. Building on the existing evidence base for Schwartz Rounds implementation, this study aims to understand the key factors associated with Team Time implementation and sustainability in this context.

methodsTwenty semi-structured interviews were conducted within 10 NHS acute, community and mental health organisations that ran Team Time during the pandemic: six with no prior experience of Schwartz Rounds and four that ran Schwartz Rounds prior to the pandemic. Additionally, three Team Time mentors who provided support to these organisations were also interviewed. Data analysis was underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data were analysed thematically, and key implementation factors were mapped onto CFIR constructs using the Framework method to explore patterns.

resultsImplementation of Team Time was challenging in organisations that did not run Schwartz Rounds previously. Facilitating factors included having incentives in the outer setting (wider context of the organisation), the adaptability of the intervention, and wide ownership across the organisation. However, barriers to implementation were the perception that the intervention was complex and resource intensive and an unsupportive organisational culture and communication difficulties which hindered engagement. In those organisations which already ran Schwartz Rounds the burden of setting up the organisational infrastructure for Team Time was smaller and the implementation climate more supportive.

conclusionsSimilar to Schwartz Rounds, Team Time needed broad and sustained organisational support for implementation to become embedded in organisations and deliver benefits. Implementing it as an entirely new and stand-alone online intervention during the pandemic was challenging. Team Time should therefore be considered as an addition to Schwartz Rounds and as part of a long-term organisational investment in staff psychological wellbeing, not as a short-term intervention in a period of crisis.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsQualitative ResearchState MedicineHealth PersonnelHumansInterviews as TopicOrganizational CultureSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID-19ImplementationOrganisational interventionSchwartz RoundsStaff psychological wellbeingTeam Time

Identifiers

PMID39695659
PMCPMC11657638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.