Circling Science

A realist informed mixed-methods evaluation of Schwartz Center Rounds® in England

Jill Maben, Cath Taylor, Jeremy Dawson, Mary Leamy, Imelda McCarthy, Ellie Reynolds, Shilpa Ross, Caroline Shuldham, Laura Bennett and Catherine Foot · 2018

Evidence
Controlled study
Kind
Report
peer-reviewed
Method
Mixed-methods evaluation including an attendance comparison over time, interviews and observation
Sample
1,140 staff at baseline and 500 at follow-up; 177 interviews and observations of 42 Rounds
Published
Health Services and Delivery Research, 6(37), 1–260
Practices
Schwartz Rounds

Adjacent

Studies a related practice or mechanism, without testing Circling.

An English evaluation of Schwartz Rounds found a larger fall in reported psychological distress among regular attenders than non-attenders, but no change in engagement.

What it doesn’t show

Staff chose whether to attend, and attendance groups differed at baseline. Follow-up included 500 of the original 1,140 respondents. The comparison cannot establish that Rounds caused the difference in reported distress, and it does not demonstrate better patient care. Distress and engagement were self-rated. The lead author advised the King’s Fund project that brought Rounds to England (2006–09) and sat on the board of the Point of Care Foundation, which holds the UK licence for Rounds, until the evaluation began; two co-authors work at the King’s Fund.

Summary based on the abstract, scientific summary and relevant methods, results and limitations sections of the report.

Links

Cite

Maben, J., Taylor, C., Dawson, J., Leamy, M., McCarthy, I., Reynolds, E., Ross, S., Shuldham, C., Bennett, L., & Foot, C. (2018). A realist informed mixed-methods evaluation of Schwartz Center Rounds® in England. Health Services and Delivery Research. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr06370