Development, Implementation and Mixed‐Methods Evaluation of a Multicomponent Peer‐Support Programme in an Anaesthesiology Department
Simon Tulloch, Jacob Nielsen, Marlene D. Madsen, Peter Dieckmann, Pernille Cedergren, Vicki Gudmandsen, Kim L. Mikkelsen, Doris ØstergaardABSTRACT
Background
Healthcare professionals working in anaesthesiology are exposed to frequent emotionally challenging situations. Many well‐being initiatives focus on individual coping or support after major events, whereas less attention has been given to organisationally embedded support for everyday work‐related challenges. We aimed to describe the development, implementation, uptake and staff experience of a department‐wide peer‐support programme.
Methods
We conducted a single‐centre, uncontrolled pre–post mixed‐methods implementation and evaluation study in a university hospital anaesthesiology department. Kern's six‐step approach guided development and implementation of a multicomponent programme comprising education about well‐being and psychological safety, leadership modelling, local change champions, structured collegial conversations and brief team defusing. Evaluation combined pre‐ and post‐intervention surveys, implementation/process data and post‐intervention group interviews. Survey outcomes across five dimensions—well‐being, coping, teamwork, psychological safety and patient safety culture—were exploratory.
Results
Approximately 80% of staff were trained in structured collegial conversations; 55% of post‐intervention respondents reported participating in at least one structured collegial conversation and 35% in at least one defusing. Across the five survey dimensions there was no consistent pattern of change. In exploratory analyses, the proportion of respondents with coping scores in the highest quartile increased from 31.3% to 42.0% (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08–2.34), while the proportion reporting ‘being new’ as a source of emotional burden decreased from 14.0% to 6.8% (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23–0.86). Group interview participants described a shared language for discussing challenging experiences, increased attention to colleagues' support needs and value in the structured listening approach. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the uncontrolled design and multiple exploratory outcomes.
Conclusion
A multicomponent peer‐support programme was implemented with substantial staff participation in an anaesthesiology department. The study provides evidence about implementation, uptake and staff experience, but does not establish that the programme caused improvements in well‐being or organisational culture. Leadership engagement, local champions and integration into existing departmental structures appeared important to implementation.
Editorial Comment
The present study describes the implementation of a departmental peer‐support programme addressing everyday emotional challenges in anaesthesiology. Substantial participation and positive qualitative accounts suggest that structured conversations can be integrated into clinical practice. However, inconsistent survey findings and the uncontrolled design preclude strong conclusions about effectiveness.