What can healthcare organisations do to improve medical engagement? A systematic review.

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Leader Pub Date : 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1136/leader-2023-000963
Jen Perry
{"title":"What can healthcare organisations do to improve medical engagement? A systematic review.","authors":"Jen Perry","doi":"10.1136/leader-2023-000963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical engagement is linked to improved outcomes for staff and patients including a reduction in staff turnover. There are significant problems with recruitment and retention of doctors globally, it is, therefore, important to try to increase medical engagement within healthcare organisations. This systematic review aimed to review evidence from 2018 to 2023 from peer-reviewed journals on interventions to improve medical engagement and from this generate practical recommendations for healthcare organisations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A search strategy was developed and used across six databases alongside citation searching. Articles were screened to check whether they met the study criteria and were then critically appraised. The interventions were extracted and a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach, was undertaken.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>15 articles were found to have met the criteria, however, the studies were generally found to be of low-quality research evidence. The interventions from the articles were grouped into nine themes covering topics such as 'Improvements to working conditions', 'Increasing support to doctors' and 'Rewards/incentives/recognition'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The review generated a wide range of interventions which could be used to improve medical engagement, however, critical appraisal revealed that they were of low-quality evidence, so their effectiveness should be interpreted with some caution. The majority of the interventions were transferable to healthcare settings, with some limitations depending on the country. Several HR models were described as options for implementing these interventions within healthcare organisations. Further high-quality research is needed in this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":36677,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Leader","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Leader","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2023-000963","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Medical engagement is linked to improved outcomes for staff and patients including a reduction in staff turnover. There are significant problems with recruitment and retention of doctors globally, it is, therefore, important to try to increase medical engagement within healthcare organisations. This systematic review aimed to review evidence from 2018 to 2023 from peer-reviewed journals on interventions to improve medical engagement and from this generate practical recommendations for healthcare organisations.

Method: A search strategy was developed and used across six databases alongside citation searching. Articles were screened to check whether they met the study criteria and were then critically appraised. The interventions were extracted and a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach, was undertaken.

Results: 15 articles were found to have met the criteria, however, the studies were generally found to be of low-quality research evidence. The interventions from the articles were grouped into nine themes covering topics such as 'Improvements to working conditions', 'Increasing support to doctors' and 'Rewards/incentives/recognition'.

Conclusion: The review generated a wide range of interventions which could be used to improve medical engagement, however, critical appraisal revealed that they were of low-quality evidence, so their effectiveness should be interpreted with some caution. The majority of the interventions were transferable to healthcare settings, with some limitations depending on the country. Several HR models were described as options for implementing these interventions within healthcare organisations. Further high-quality research is needed in this area.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗机构如何提高医务人员的参与度?系统性综述。
背景:医疗参与与改善员工和患者的治疗效果有关,包括降低员工流失率。全球在招聘和留住医生方面存在严重问题,因此,努力提高医疗机构内的医疗参与度非常重要。本系统性综述旨在回顾2018年至2023年同行评审期刊中有关提高医务人员参与度的干预措施的证据,并从中为医疗机构提出实用建议:制定了检索策略,并在六个数据库中使用,同时进行引文检索。对文章进行筛选,检查其是否符合研究标准,然后进行严格评估。提取干预措施,并采用归纳法进行专题分析:结果:发现有 15 篇文章符合标准,但研究证据的质量普遍较低。文章中的干预措施被分为九个主题,涵盖 "改善工作条件"、"增加对医生的支持 "和 "奖励/激励/认可 "等主题:综述提出了一系列可用于提高医务人员参与度的干预措施,但批判性评估显示,这些措施的证据质量较低,因此在解释其有效性时应谨慎从事。大多数干预措施都可用于医疗环境,但因国家不同而存在一些局限性。有几种人力资源模式被描述为在医疗机构中实施这些干预措施的备选方案。在这一领域还需要进一步开展高质量的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Leader
BMJ Leader Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.40%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Religious identity-based discrimination in the physician workforce: findings from a survey of Muslim physicians in the UK. Ten years on: The Snowy White Peaks of the NHS. Gender disparity in Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding within neurology. Impact of department chair gender on paid parental leave across American anaesthesiology residencies. 'Can you have it all?' Exploring perceived gender roles in leadership through the lens of the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer's clinical fellows 2023/24.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1