Ward staff support programmes have mixed evidence and reports of harm
A review of mental health wards found no clearly supported intervention type for improving compassionate care or reducing staff stress related to empathy.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
Staff training and other ward-level approaches had mixed evidence for improving compassionate care or reducing stress related to empathy. No intervention type had clear support, and 2 interventions showed evidence of harm. This abstract-based review suggests that offering support is not enough to assume benefit; effects on staff and patients need careful evaluation.
The abstract does not describe the reported harms or identify which programmes caused them. Economic effects and harms related to equity were poorly evaluated, and the authors call for stronger controlled research.
What programmes tried to change
The review included training, changes to ward practices or surroundings, collaborative research approaches and peer review. Interventions generally tried to increase the resources available to staff rather than reduce the demands placed on them.
What remains unclear
The authors found that explanations of how programmes should work were often underdeveloped. Patient and public input was also inconsistent. These gaps leave questions about how programmes were expected to help and whose perspectives shaped them.
The original publication
Interventions to reduce empathy-based stress and enhance compassionate care in mental health wards: a systematic review.
Maddox L, Teoh K, Baldoza S et al.
BMC Health Serv Res · 2025
- PubMed ID
- 41430673
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.