ArticleCJEM2026
Understanding the impact of Schwartz Rounds on healthcare workers.
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBurnout rates are alarmingly high among healthcare workers, particularly emergency staff, where rates reach 60%. A systems-level intervention is necessary to deviate from the current trajectory and protect future healthcare workers from the same outcome. We aimed to understand the personal and professional impacts of participating in emergency department-led Schwartz Rounds-a structured group sharing event-on Canadian healthcare workers.
methodsThis mixed-methods study was conducted at an urban community hospital in Calgary, Alberta. Electronic surveys with quantitative and free-text questions were completed voluntarily by participants at one of six Schwartz Rounds conducted from 2021 to 2023. Qualitative focus groups were then conducted with participants and panelists who had attended at least one session. Reflexive thematic analyses of free-text and focus groups were performed.
resultsParticipants included social workers, physicians, nurses, allied health, unit clerks, pharmacists, administrative staff, leaders, and hospital volunteers. There were 131 survey responses and 10 focus group participants. All survey respondents agreed that social and emotional aspects of patient care were discussed during Schwartz Rounds, allowing them to gain new insights into patients' and coworkers' perspectives. Eighty percent felt more prepared for sensitive patient conversations, and 86% felt less isolated and more open to sharing thoughts with colleagues. Four key themes were identified through qualitative inquiry: (A) Safety and vulnerability; (B) Humanity in health care; (C) Appreciating diversity of perspective; and (D) Fostering a culture of care for healthcare workers.
conclusionsSchwartz Rounds provide healthcare workers with a structured space to process the emotional dimensions of care. They promote recognition of patients and colleagues as individuals with complex experiences, and may enhance interdisciplinary understanding and collaboration. Integrating Schwartz Rounds into emergency department practice represents a promising approach to strengthening connection, psychological safety, and compassionate care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573947What 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.