Best evidence statement (BESt). Team building and mentoring for increased satisfaction and retention.
General
Guideline Title
Best evidence statement (BESt). Team building and mentoring for increased satisfaction and retention.
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Team building and mentoring for increased satisfaction and retention. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Mar 25. 6 p. [13 references]
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Recommendations
Major Recommendations
The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1a‒5b) are defined at the end of the “Major Recommendations” field.
It is recommended that nurses participate in a mentor program to increase job satisfaction and retention (Allen et al., 2004 [1b]; Thomas & Lankau, 2009 [4a]; Hayes et al., 2005 [5a]; Latham, Ringl, & Hogan, 2011 [4a]; Cottingham et al., 2011 [4b]; Greene & Puetzer, 2002 [5b]).
It is recommended that nurses participate in team-building activities to increase job satisfaction and retention (Kalisch, Curley, & Stefanov, 2007 [4a]; DiMeglio et al., 2005 [4b]; Hayes et al., 2005 [5a]; Birx, LaSala, & Wagstaff, 2011 [4b]; Barrett et al., 2009 [4b]; Horak et al., 2006 [5b]; Pipe et al., 2012 [4a]; Medland, Howard-Ruben, & Whitaker, 2004 [5b]).
Definitions:
Table of Evidence Levels
| Quality Level | Definition |
|---|---|
| 1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
| 2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
| 3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
| 4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
| 5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
| 5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Table of Recommendation Strength
| Strength | Definition |
|---|---|
|
It is strongly recommended that…
It is strongly recommended that… not… |
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations) |
|
It is recommended that…
It is recommended that… not… |
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
| There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… | |
Note : See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Clinical Algorithm(s)
None provided
Scope
Disease/Condition(s)
All diseases and conditions requiring nursing care
Guideline Category
- Counseling
Clinical Specialty
- Nursing
Intended Users
- Advanced Practice Nurses
- Nurses
Guideline Objective(s)
To evaluate, among nurses providing care or education in any care setting if participation in a mentoring program and/or teambuilding activities compared to current practice (no mentoring program; no team building events) improves nurse satisfaction and retention
Target Population
Nurses providing care or education in any care setting
Interventions and Practices Considered
Participation in a mentoring program and/or teambuilding activities
Major Outcomes Considered
Nurse satisfaction and retention
Methodology
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
- Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Search Strategy
- Databases : Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, OhioLink, Google Scholar
- Search Terms Search Terms : Nurse relationships, communication, team building, group cohesion, healthy work environment, retreat, professional socialization, nurse retention, job satisfaction, nurse, mentor(s)
- Filters : English language; no date limit
- Search Dates : July 2012, November 2012
Number of Source Documents
Not stated
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
- Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Table of Evidence Levels
| Quality Level | Definition |
|---|---|
| 1a† or 1b† | Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies |
| 2a or 2b | Best study design for domain |
| 3a or 3b | Fair study design for domain |
| 4a or 4b | Weak study design for domain |
| 5a or 5b | General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline |
| 5 | Local Consensus |
†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
- Review of Published Meta-Analyses
- Systematic Review
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Not stated
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
- Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Not stated
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Table of Recommendation Strength
| Strength | Definition |
|---|---|
| It is strongly recommended that… It is strongly recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens. (or visa-versa for negative recommendations) |
| It is recommended that… It is recommended that… not… | When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens. |
| There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation… |
Note : See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
- Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by 2 independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
References Supporting the Recommendations
- Allen TD, Eby LT, Poteet ML, Lentz E, Lima L. Career benefits associated with mentoring for protegee: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2004 Feb;89(1):127-36. PubMed
- Barrett A, Piatek C, Korber S, Padula C. Lessons learned from a lateral violence and team-building intervention. Nurs Adm Q. 2009 Oct-Dec;33(4):342-51. PubMed
- Birx E, Lasala KB, Wagstaff M. Evaluation of a team-building retreat to promote nursing faculty cohesion and job satisfaction. J Prof Nurs. 2011 May-Jun;27(3):174-8. PubMed
- Cottingham S, DiBartolo MC, Battistoni S, Brown T. Partners in nursing: a mentoring initiative to enhance nurse retention. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2011 Jul-Aug;32(4):250-5. PubMed
- DiMeglio K, Padula C, Piatek C, Korber S, Barrett A, Ducharme M, Lucas S, Piermont N, Joyal E, DeNicola V, Corry K. Group cohesion and nurse satisfaction: examination of a team-building approach. J Nurs Adm. 2005 Mar;35(3):110-20. PubMed
- Greene MT, Puetzer M. The value of mentoring: a strategic approach to retention and recruitment. J Nurs Care Qual. 2002 Oct;17(1):63-70. PubMed
- Hayes C, Ponte PR, Coakley A, Stanghellini E, Gross A, Perryman S, Somerville J. Retaining oncology nurses: Strategies for today’s nurse leaders. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005;32(6):1087-90.
- Horak BJ, Hicks K, Pellicciotti S, Duncan A. Create cultural change and team building. Nurs Manage. 2006 Dec;37(12):12, 14. PubMed
- Kalisch BJ, Curley M, Stefanov S. An intervention to enhance nursing staff teamwork and engagement. J Nurs Adm. 2007 Feb;37(2):77-84. PubMed
- Latham CL, Ringl K, Hogan M. Professionalization and retention outcomes of a university-service mentoring program partnership. J Prof Nurs. 2011 Nov-Dec;27(6):344-53. PubMed
- Medland J, Howard-Ruben J, Whitaker E. Fostering psychosocial wellness in oncology nurses: addressing burnout and social support in the workplace. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004 Jan-Feb;31(1):47-54. [28 references] PubMed
- Pipe TB, Buchda VL, Launder S, Hudak B, Hulvey L, Karns KE, Pendergast D. Building personal and professional resources of resilience and agility in the healthcare workplace. Stress Health. 2012 Feb;28(1):11-22. PubMed
- Thomas CH, Lankau MJ. Preventing burnout: the effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resour Manag. 2009;48(3):417-32.
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the “Major Recommendations” field).
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
Mentoring has been shown to be a valuable strategy to advance positive healthy work environments. Mentoring can also enhance the professionalization of registered nurses (RNs), resulting in improved nurse retention and patient care outcomes, especially as mentoring becomes part of the hospital culture. Many of the competent, proficient, and expert clinicians who sought out the mentor role reported being “reinvigorated” and less burned out. Teambuilding allows RNs to identify barriers to cohesive group functioning including ineffective and negative communication, generational differences, peer competence and accountability.
Potential Harms
Not stated
Qualifying Statements
Qualifying Statements
This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
Applicability Issues
Management and staff collaboration is essential to establish the criteria required to become a mentor and to design how the mentorship program will work. A process for matching new staff with a mentor and the appropriate length of the mentorship needs to be identified. The development of a guideline for managing the mentorship program is needed.
Team building sessions or retreats will need to be planned. Staff input on what the sessions should include can make the sessions more useful and successful. A person or team to facilitate the sessions must be identified. A location and schedule for the team building sessions needs to be identified and convenient for staff to attend. Multiple sessions will need to be available for nursing staff to support the programs sustainability. The human resources department or other hospital wide staff education resources can be utilized for facilitation of teambuilding interventions.
The planning and implementation of both interventions will require time outside of the regular schedule.
Implementation Tools
- Audit Criteria/Indicators
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
- Getting Better
IOM Domain
- Effectiveness
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). Team building and mentoring for increased satisfaction and retention. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2013 Mar 25. 6 p. [13 references]
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2013 Mar 25
Guideline Developer(s)
- Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center - Hospital/Medical Center
Source(s) of Funding
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
Guideline Committee
Not stated
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Author : Erin Sandfoss BSN, RN III, CPN, Cancer and Blood Disease Institute Outpatient Clinic and Day Hospital
Team Members/Co-Authors : Mary Ellen Meier MSN, RN, CPN, Center for Professional Excellence, Evidence-Based Practice Mentor
Ad Hoc/Content Reviewers : Shawna Kirkendall BSN, MBA, Clinical Director Cancer and Blood Disease Institute Outpatient Clinic and Day Hospital Patient/Family/Parent or Other Parent Organization
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of interest declaration forms are filed with the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Evidence-based Decision Making (CCHMC EBDM) group. No financial or intellectual conflicts of interest were found.
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
Guideline Availability
Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Web site.
Availability of Companion Documents
The following are available:
- Judging the strength of a recommendation. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Jan. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
- Grading a body of evidence to answer a clinical question. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 1 p.
- Table of evidence levels. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; 2008 Feb 29. 1 p. Available from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
In addition, suggested process or outcome measures are available in the original guideline document.
Patient Resources
None available
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on May 24, 2013.
Copyright Statement
This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:
Copies of this Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of CCHMC’s BESt include the following:
- Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization’s process for developing and implementing evidence-based care guidelines.
- Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization’s website.
- The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents.
- Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care.
Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked to by a given organization and/or user, is appreciated.
Disclaimer
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.