Feasibility, psychological outcomes and practical use of a stress-preventive leadership intervention in the workplace hospital:The results of a mixed-method phase-II study

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals are psychologically demanding workplaces with a need for context-specific stress-preventive leadership interventions. A stress-preventive interprofessional leadership intervention for middle management has been developed. This phase-II study investigates its feasibility and outcomes, including work-related stress, well-being and transformational leadership. DESIGN: This is a mixed-methods study with three measure points (T0: baseline, T1: after the last training session, T2: 3-month follow-up). Additionally, focus groups were conducted to assess participants’ change in everyday work. SETTING: A tertiary hospital in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: N=93 leaders of different professions. INTERVENTION: An interactive group setting intervention divided in five separate sessions ((1) self-care as a leader, (2) leadership attitudes and behaviour, (3) motives, needs and stressors of employees, (4) strengthen the resource ‘team’, (5) reflection and focus groups). The intervention was conducted between June 2018 and March 2020 in k=5 runs of the intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility and acceptance were measured with a self-developed intervention specific questionnaire. Psychological outcomes were assessed with the following scales: work-related strain with the Irritation Scale, well-being with the WHO-5 Well-being Index and transformational leadership with the Questionnaire of Integrative Leadership. RESULTS: After the intervention at T2, over 90% of participants reported that they would recommend the intervention to another coworker (92.1%, n=59) and all participants (n=64) were satisfied with the intervention and rated the intervention as practical relevant for their everyday work. Participants’ self-rated cognitive irritation was reduced, whereas their well-being and transformational leadership behaviour were improved over time. Focus group discussions revealed that participants implemented intervention contents successfully in their everyday work. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention was feasible and showed first promising intraindividual changes in psychological outcomes. Participants confirmed its practical relevance. As a next step, the intervention will be evaluated as part of a multicentre—randomised controlled trial within the project SEEGEN (SEElische GEsundheit am Arbeitsplatz KrankeNhaus)

Reflection on leadership behavior: potentials and limits in the implementation of stress-preventive leadership of middle management in hospitals – a qualitative evaluation of a participatory developed intervention

Background: Mental health and stress prevention aspects related to workplace in hospitals are gaining increasingly more attention in research. The workplace hospital is characterized by high work intensity, high emotional demands, and high levels of stress. These conditions can be a risk for the development of mental disorders. Leadership styles can hinder or foster work-related stress and influence the well-being of employees. Through leadership interventions, leaders may be encouraged to develop a stress-preventive leadership style that addresses both, the well-being of the leaders and of the subordinates. A comprehensive qualitative description of leaders' experiences with interventions on the topic of stress-preventive leadership is yet missing in the literature. Therefore, we address leaders of middle management regarding the development of stress-preventive leadership styles through supporting interventions. The research questions are: How do leaders of middle management perceive their leadership role in terms of effectiveness in stress prevention? Which potentials and limits in the implementation of stress-preventive leadership are experienced? Methods: The study follows a qualitative research design and content analysis. We conducted individual interviews with leaders of middle management (n = 30) of a tertiary hospital in Germany for the participatory development of an intervention. This intervention, consisting of five consecutive modules, addressed leaders of middle management in all work areas within one hospital. After participation in the intervention, the leaders were asked to reflect on and evaluate the implementation of the contents learned within focus group discussions. Overall 10 focus group discussions with leaders (n = 60) were conducted. Results: The results demonstrate that leaders of middle management perceived potentials for a stress-preventive leadership style (e.g., reflection on leadership role and leadership behavior, awareness/mindfulness, and conveying appreciation). However, limits were also mentioned. These can be differentiated into self-referential, subordinate-related, and above all organizational barriers for the implementation of stress-preventive leadership. Conclusions: Some of the organizational barriers can be addressed by mid-level leadership interventions (e.g., lack of peer-exchange) or possibly by adapted leadership interventions for top management (e.g., lack of stress-preventive leadership styles in top level management). Other organizational limits are working conditions (e.g., staff shortage) that can only be influenced by health policy decisions

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: terminology

Background: Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children’s language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology. Methods: The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results: We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature