Chesak, Sherry S.

BACKGROUND: Acquired brain injury (BI) is associated with negative mental health outcomes for both people with BI, their caregivers (CG), and patient-CG dyads, which may be mitigated through increased resilience. However, little is known regarding the efficacy of resilience interventions focused on CGs of individuals with BI, as well as dyads, which may be instrumental for positive outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence of the efficacy of resilience interventions focused on CGs and/or dyads of individuals with BI. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Scopus, SCIE, and ESCI was conducted. Each title and abstract were screened by two authors independently. Each full text review, study data extraction, and study quality assessment was performed independently by two authors. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: Out of 11,959 articles retrieved, 347 full text articles were assessed for review and 18 met inclusion criteria for data extraction and quality assessment. Resilience interventions were stratified into 5 different categories based on the type of intervention. CONCLUSION: This systematic review suggests that dyadic/CG resilience interventions may improve mental health related outcomes, but conclusions were limited secondary to heterogenous outcomes and lack of a standardized resiliency construct. Future efforts are compulsory to create a standardized resiliency construct and associated outcomes focused on persons with BI, their CGs, and dyads.

e24087 Background: Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers experience a substantial amount of distress. Limited research suggests that mindfulness-based interventions may improve quality of life and reduce anxiety. The virtually delivered Resilient Living program consisted of online modules, a print journal, and a total of 4 virtual training sessions focused on techniques for managing stress and building resilience (mindful presence, uplifting emotions, reframing experiences through principles of gratitude, compassion, acceptance, meaning, and forgiveness). The current pilot study was performed to assess the feasibility of the virtual Resilient Living Program for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, as well as preliminary effects on anxiety and related outcomes. Methods: Eligible patients included those age ≥18 years with a diagnosis of advanced cancer with expected prognosis > 6 months. Feasibility was defined as consent of at least 25% of eligible patients and their caregivers. Adherence was defined as 75% of the enrolled participants completing at least 3 of the 4 Resilient Living sessions. The primary outcome measure was anxiety as measured by the GAD-7; others included stress (PSS), quality of life (LASA), sleep (ISI), resiliency (Resiliency Scale), and fatigue (PROMIS-Fatigue SF). Results: Seventy-two eligible patients were referred to the study, of these 33 patients enrolled (46% enrollment), 15 also had a caregiver enroll. Thirty participants completed at least 3 virtual sessions (63% adherence). Data was collected at baseline, week 5 (after 2 session), week 9 (after 4 sessions), and week 12 (1 month after completion) for patients and caregivers. There were statistically significant improvements in anxiety at weeks 5, 9 and 12 (i.e., p < 0.05). Other results are outlined in the table. Conclusions: Virtual participation in the Resilient Living Program is feasible and acceptable for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Data from this pilot study suggest that the program may positivity impact anxiety, stress, sleep, quality of life and resiliency. A larger randomized prospective clinical trial is warranted to confirm these preliminary findings. Clinical trial information: NCT04480008. [Table: see text]

11016 Background: Stress Management and Resiliency Training (SMART) is a validated resilience training program designed to reduce stress, improve emotional resilience, and decrease burnout. The prevalence of burnout among practicing oncologists is as high as 40%, but unknown among oncology trainees. We implemented a virtual format of the SMART program to the Hematology/Oncology fellowship at Mayo Clinic to assess the feasibility of such a delivery, measure baseline rates of burnout in this group, and to investigate if a virtual method of delivery is as effective as in-person delivery as described in the literature. Methods: The SMART project was a mixed-methods, prospective, single arm clinical trial. Hematology/Oncology Fellows at Mayo Clinic were invited to participate. Four one-hour training sessions were conducted virtually. Fellows were given access to SMART online video modules and a book which supported the content covered during virtual training, a companion resilience mobile app, and a paperback mindfulness journal. Stress, burnout, and emotional resilience were measured at baseline and three months post-intervention using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2). Changes in mean scores on the PSS, MBI, and CD-RISC2 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Program feedback and feasibility data were obtained during a virtual focus group. Audio transcripts from the focus group were codified for thematic analysis and verified by intercoder triangulation. A 6-month assessment will be due in March 2022. Results: 26 of 50 fellows invited participated in our study. At baseline, 24% of participants had measurable burnout and 92% had moderate to high stress. At 3-months, the number of participants with moderate to high stress decreased to 71%, while rates of burnout remained unchanged. The PSS demonstrated a decrease in mean stress (-10.9%, p = 0.005), while the MBI demonstrated decreased emotional exhaustion (MBI-EE -6.01%, p = 0.04), an improved sense of personal achievement (MBI-PA 28.1%, p < 0.001), but slightly worse feelings of depersonalization (MBI-DP 16.46%, p = 0.05). The CD-RISC2 suggested no change in global emotional resilience (-0.71%, p = 0.82). Thematic analysis of the focus group data revealed that participants overwhelmingly found the program beneficial (83% of all responses), 20% indicated improved stress, and 15% indicated improved work performance. Conclusions: Oncology fellows in this study had lower rates of burnout compared to practicing oncologists. Virtual implementation of the SMART program is feasible and resulted in improvements in stress and prevented worsened burnout. Outcomes were comparable to previously published studies conducted in-person. Focus group participants found the training beneficial, reported lower stress, and improved work performance.

AbstractAims and ObjectivesThe purpose of this paper is to describe a model to guide nursing science in a clinical practice‐based setting. Exemplars are provided to highlight the application of this nursing research model, which can be applied to other clinical settings that aim to fill evidence gaps in the literature.BackgroundNurse scientists are well positioned to develop new knowledge aimed at identifying global health solutions to multiple disparities. The generation and application of this knowledge are essential to inform and guide professional nursing practice. While a number of evidence‐based practice models exist to guide the integration of literature findings and other sources of evidence into practice, there is a need for additional models that serve as a guide and focus for the conduct of research in distinct scientific areas in practice‐based settings.DesignModel development and description.MethodsMayo Clinic is a large, comprehensive healthcare system with a mission to address unmet patient needs through practice, research and education. PhD‐prepared nurse scientists engage in practice‐based research as an integral component of Mayo Clinic's mission. A practice‐based nursing research model was developed with the intent to advance nursing research in a clinical setting.ResultsThe components of the Mayo Clinic Nursing Research model include symptom science, self‐management science and caregiving science. The generation of nursing science is focused on addressing needs of patients with complex health conditions, inclusive of caregivers.ConclusionsWhile clinical settings provide rich opportunities for the conduct of research, priorities need to be established in which to focus scientific endeavours. The Mayo Clinic Nursing Research model may be applicable to nurses around the globe who are engaged in the generation of knowledge to guide practice.Relevance to Clinical PracticeThe Mayo Clinic Nursing Research model can be used by nurse scientists embedded in healthcare settings to address clinically relevant questions, advance the generation of new nursing knowledge and ultimately improve the health and well‐being of patients and caregivers.

Objective To estimate the health care workers (HCWs) self-reported stress, resilience, and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine inter-professional differences. Participants and Methods An email survey was sent to 474 HCW at a Midwestern HealthCare facility between April 9, 2020 and April 30, 2020. A total of 311 (65.6%) responses were received by May 31, 2020. The survey utilized 3 validated instruments: Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Brief Resilience Coping Scale (BRCS). Results Of the 311 responses, 302 were evaluated: 97 from nonmedical staff with patient contact (NMPC); 86 from nonmedical staff with no patient contact (NMNPC); 62 from medical doctors (MD), physician assistants (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP); and 57 from nurses. Significant differences were noted across job categories for stress and resilience, with nurses reporting highest PSS scores (effect estimates: −2.72, P = .009 for NMNPC; −2.50, P = .015 for NMPC; −3.21, P = .006 for MD/NP/PA respectively), and MD/NP/PA group with highest BRS scores: nurses (−0.31, P = .02); NMPC (−0.3333, P = .01); and NMNPC (−0.2828, P = .02). Younger personnel had higher stress (−1.59 per decade of age, P < .01) and more resilience (0.11 per decade of age, P = .002). Conclusion These self-reported data indicate that MD/NP/PA had the highest resilience scores and the nurses had highest stress levels. Efforts are warranted to include all HCWs in systematic stress mitigating interventions with particular attention to understand specific factors contributing to stress for the nursing team.

Abstract Background Nurse leaders who are mothers are at significant risk for experiencing stress, burnout, and occupational fatigue. Authentic Connections (AC) Groups is an intervention shown to be effective for fostering resilience among at‐risk moms, including physicians; however, it has not previously been tested with nurse leaders. Aims Our aims were to test the feasibility and acceptability of the AC Groups intervention with nurse leader mothers and examine its effects on participant resilience, as measured by increased self‐compassion and decreased distress, depression, perceived stress, and burnout. Methods A randomized controlled trial design was employed for this pilot study, with 36 nurse leaders at Mayo Clinic. AC participants attended group sessions for an hour per week for 12 weeks. Control group members were provided 1 hr per week of free time over 12 weeks. Multiple self‐report psychological measures were completed at baseline, post‐intervention, and 3‐month follow‐up. Results The AC Groups intervention was feasible and well‐received by nurse leaders. Session attendance rates averaged 92%. Despite the small n ’s, repeated measures of Analysis of Variance showed significantly greater improvements ( p < .05) for participants in the AC Groups than control condition for depression, self‐compassion, and perceived stress, with large effect sizes ( 0.18–0.22). In addition, effect sizes for anxiety and feeling loved approximated the moderate range ( 0.05 and .07). Linking Evidence to Action The AC intervention shows promise as a feasible intervention for mitigating nurse leader mothers’ stress by positively impacting indices of well‐being, including depression, self‐compassion, and perceived stress. Given, the prevalence of stress and burnout among nurse leaders, the effectiveness of the AC intervention in fostering resilience in this population has significant implications for research and practice. Further research is warranted with larger numbers from multiple sites, longer follow‐up periods, and biomarker measures of stress.

Background: The nursing literature contains numerous studies on stress management interventions for nurses, but their overall levels of evidence remain unclear. Holistic nurses use best-available evidence to guide practice with self-care interventions. Ongoing discovery of knowledge, dissemination of research findings, and evidence-based practice are the foundation of specialized practice in holistic nursing. This literature review aimed to identify the current level of evidence for stress management interventions for nurses. Method: A systematic search and review of the literature was used to summarize existing research related to stress management interventions for nurses and recommend directions for future research and practice. Results: Ninety articles met the inclusion criteria for this study and were categorized and analyzed for scientific rigor. Various stress management interventions for nurses have been investigated, most of which are aimed at treatment of the individual versus the environment. Contemporary studies only moderately meet the identified standards of research design. Issues identified include lack of randomized controlled trials, little use of common measurement instruments across studies, and paucity of investigations regarding organizational strategies to reduce nurses’ stress. Conclusion: Future research is indicated to include well-designed randomized controlled trials, standardized measurement tools, and more emphasis on interventions aimed at the environment.

Purpose: To examine the feasibility of a brief mindfulness intervention and to reduce nurse stress and burnout in an inpatient medical unit. Design: Single-arm, pre/post test study design. Method: Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and pre/post demographic questionnaires given at pre-intervention (baseline) and 6 weeks post-intervention. Intervention effectiveness was compared between the pre-survey ( N = 52) and post-survey ( N = 33). Five choices were offered to inpatient staff: a guided mindfulness CD, soothing sounds machine with a breathing technique instructional, mindfulness prompts, a journal, and water/snacks during six consecutive weekends. Findings: The mean PSS score did not improve and demonstrated a slight increase during the six-weekend intervention. However, mean MBI scores for the subscales of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization did demonstrate improvement as evident by decreased scores. Additionally, the mean MBI score for the subscale of personal accomplishment also improved with increased scores. Qualitative themes were positive and included relaxation, nourishment, and refocus. Majority of participants (75%) perceived the intervention as being effective or very effective in reducing stress at work. Respondents were “interested” or “very interested” in continuing a similar intervention in the future (84.9%). Conclusion: The improvement in scores for the MBI measures were a positive finding. The intervention was low cost, individualized, and accessible. The feasibility and perceptions of the intervention’s effectiveness has positive implications for the well-being of nurses.