Systematic review: What is the impact of self‐scheduling on the patient, nurse and organization?
- 5 October 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Vol. 77 (1) , 47-82
Abstract
Aim: To systematically review and evaluate the literature on the impact of self‐scheduling on patient, nurse and organization‐related outcomes.Design: A systematic review.Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cinahl, Scopus, Google Scholar, ERIC and Cochrane Library were screened until October 2019 (week 40) for peer‐reviewed, empirical articles, written in English, Dutch or French.Review methods: Two reviewers screened title and abstract using predetermined eligibility criteria and one reviewer screened the full texts of relevant hits. Quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Results: Studies (N = 23) were retained and classified into explanatory and descriptive studies. The articles reported on a range of outcomes: patient‐ and nurse‐reported quality of care, job satisfaction, satisfaction with scheduling, work/life balance, planning involvement, interaction with colleagues, health and well‐being, psychosocial factors, professional development, nurse manager's scheduling time, general working conditions, turnover, temporary employment agency use and absenteeism, recruitment and retention.Conclusion: The evidence base is limited. Several studies confirmed the positive impact of self‐scheduling on the nurse and the organization. However, other studies found negative outcomes or no change. These outcomes should be interpreted in the light of contextual factors and the implementation process, which was often not without difficulties. Future research should use a multimethod longitudinal design, bear in mind the possibilities of quantitative research (e.g. for studying psychosocial factors) and employ a theoretical framework.Impact: This review informs about the inconsistent evidence on the association between self‐scheduling and patient, nurse and organization‐related outcomes and includes enablers and barriers to a successful implementation. These outcomes are influenced by the implementation process and the sustainability of the self‐scheduling system, which are still major challenges for healthcare management. This demonstrates the urgent need for further research.Keywords
Funding Information
- Universiteit Gent
This publication has 58 references indexed in Scilit:
- Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papersBMC Public Health, 2013
- Bridging the gap between self schedules and feasible schedules in staff schedulingAnnals of Operations Research, 2012
- Evaluation design for a complex intervention program targeting loneliness in non-institutionalized elderly Dutch peopleBMC Public Health, 2010
- A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in Mixed Studies ReviewsInternational Journal of Nursing Studies, 2009
- Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidanceBMJ, 2008
- Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventionsJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2008
- Developing a successful self-rostering shift systemNursing Standard, 2003
- Swapping traditional rostering for self-rostering within a cancer wardCancer Nursing Practice, 2003
- Improving the Quality of Health Care in the United Kingdom and the United States: A Framework for ChangeThe Milbank Quarterly, 2001
- Qualitative Research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services researchBMJ, 1995