+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How can NHS trusts in England optimise strategies to improve the mental health and well-being of hospital doctors? The Care Under Pressure 3 (CUP3) realist evaluation study protocol


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          The growing incidence of mental ill health in doctors was a major issue in the UK and internationally, even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has significant and far-reaching implications, including poor quality or inconsistent patient care, absenteeism, workforce attrition and retention issues, presenteeism, and increased risk of suicide. Existing approaches to workplace support do not take into account the individual, organisational and social factors contributing to mental ill health in doctors, nor how interventions/programmes might interact with each other within the workplace. The aim of this study is to work collaboratively with eight purposively selected National Health Service (NHS) trusts within England to develop an evidence-based implementation toolkit for all NHS trusts to reduce doctors’ mental ill health and its impacts on the workforce.

          Methods and analysis

          The project will incorporate three phases. Phase 1 develops a typology of interventions to reduce doctors’ mental ill health. Phase 2 is a realist evaluation of the existing combinations of strategies being used by acute English healthcare trusts to reduce doctors’ mental ill health (including preventative promotion of well-being), based on 160 interviews with key stakeholders. Phase 3 synthesises the insights gained through phases 1 and 2, to create an implementation toolkit that all UK healthcare trusts can use to optimise their strategies to reduce doctors’ mental ill health and its impact on the workforce and patient care.

          Ethics and dissemination

          Ethical approval has been granted for phase 2 of the project from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number 22/WA/0352). As part of the conditions for our ethics approval, the sites included in our study will remain anonymous. To ensure the relevance of the study’s outputs, we have planned a wide range of dissemination strategies: an implementation toolkit for healthcare leaders, service managers and doctors; conventional academic outputs such as journal manuscripts and conference presentations; plain English summaries; cartoons and animations; and a media engagement campaign.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

          Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during covid-19 pandemic

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider.

              The Triple Aim-enhancing patient experience, improving population health, and reducing costs-is widely accepted as a compass to optimize health system performance. Yet physicians and other members of the health care workforce report widespread burnout and dissatisfaction. Burnout is associated with lower patient satisfaction, reduced health outcomes, and it may increase costs. Burnout thus imperils the Triple Aim. This article recommends that the Triple Aim be expanded to a Quadruple Aim, adding the goal of improving the work life of health care providers, including clinicians and staff.

                Author and article information

                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                9 November 2023
                : 13
                : 11
                : e073615
                [1 ]departmentHealth and Community Sciences , Ringgold_171002University of Exeter Medical School , Exeter, UK
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Public Health and Sport Sciences , Ringgold_3286University of Exeter Medical School , Exeter, UK
                [3 ]Ringgold_3287Devon Partnership NHS Trust , Exeter, UK
                [4 ]departmentWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre , Ringgold_4019Hull York Medical School, University of Hull , Hull, UK
                [5 ]departmentNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , Ringgold_6396University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Daniele Carrieri; d.carrieri@ 123456exeter.ac.uk
                Author information
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                : 15 March 2023
                : 11 October 2023
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: NIHR 132931
                Health Services Research
                Custom metadata

                protocols & guidelines,organisation of health services,mental health
                protocols & guidelines, organisation of health services, mental health


                Comment on this article