Nurses leaving their jobs and the profession are an issue of international concern, with supply-demand gaps for nurses reported to be widening. There is a large body of existing literature, much of which is already in review form. In order to advance the usefulness of the literature for nurse and human resource managers, we undertook an overview (review of systematic reviews). The aim of the overview was to identify high quality evidence of the determinants and consequences of turnover in adult nursing. Reviews were identified which were published between 1990 and January 2015 in English using electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, CINAHL plus and SCOPUS) and forward searching. All stages of the review were conducted in parallel by two reviewers. Reviews were quality appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews and their findings narratively synthesised. Nine reviews were included. We found that the current evidence is incomplete and has a number of important limitations. However, a body of moderate quality review evidence does exist giving a picture of multiple determinants of turnover in adult nursing, with - at the individual level - nurse stress and dissatisfaction being important factors and -at the organisational level - managerial style and supervisory support factors holding most weight. The consequences of turnover are only described in economic terms, but are considered significant. In making a quality assessment of the review as well as considering the quality of the included primary studies and specificity in the outcomes they measure, the overview found that the evidence is not as definitive as previously presented from individual reviews. Further research is required, of rigorous research design, whether quantitative or qualitative, particularly against the outcome of actual turnover as opposed to intention to leave. PROSPERO Registration 17 March 2015: CRD42015017613 .

Background: Co-production is defined as the voluntary or involuntary involvement of users in the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of services. Interest in co-production as an intervention for improving healthcare quality is increasing. In the acute healthcare context, co-production is promoted as harnessing the knowledge of patients, carers and staff to make changes about which they care most. However, little is known regarding the impact of co-production on patient, staff or organisational outcomes in these settings. Aims: To identify and appraise reported outcomes of co-production as an intervention to improve quality of services in acute healthcare settings. Design: Rapid evidence synthesis. Data sources: Medline, Cinahl, Web of Science, Embase, HMIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SCIE, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, EThOS, OpenGrey; CoDesign ; The Design Journal ; Design Issues . Study selection: Studies reporting patient, staff or organisational outcomes associated with using co-production in an acute healthcare setting. Findings: 712 titles and abstracts were screened; 24 papers underwent full-text review, and 11 papers were included in the evidence synthesis. One study was a feasibility randomised controlled trial, three were process evaluations and seven used descriptive qualitative approaches. Reported outcomes related to (a) the value of patient and staff involvement in co-production processes; (b) the generation of ideas for changes to processes, practices and clinical environments; and (c) tangible service changes and impacts on patient experiences. Only one study included cost analysis; none reported an economic evaluation. No studies assessed the sustainability of any changes made. Conclusions: Despite increasing interest in and advocacy for co-production, there is a lack of rigorous evaluation in acute healthcare settings. Future studies should evaluate clinical and service outcomes as well as the cost-effectiveness of co-production relative to other forms of quality improvement. Potentially broader impacts on the values and behaviours of participants should also be considered.

Interprofessional teamwork has become an integral feature of healthcare delivery in a wide range of conditions and services in many countries. Many assumptions are made in healthcare literature and policy about how interprofessional teams function and about the outcomes of interprofessional teamwork. Realist synthesis is an approach to reviewing research evidence on complex interventions which seeks to explore these assumptions. It does this by unpacking the mechanisms of an intervention, exploring the contexts which trigger or deactivate them and connecting these contexts and mechanisms to their subsequent outcomes. This is the second in a series of four papers reporting a realist synthesis of interprofessional teamworking. The paper discusses four of the 13 mechanisms identified in the synthesis: collaboration and coordination; pooling of resources; individual learning; and role blurring. These mechanisms together capture the day-to-day functioning of teams and the dependence of that on members' understanding each others' skills and knowledge and learning from them. This synthesis found empirical evidence to support all four mechanisms, which tentatively suggests that collaboration, pooling, learning, and role blurring are all underlying processes of interprofessional teamwork. However, the supporting evidence for individual learning was relatively weak, therefore there may be assumptions made about learning within healthcare literature and policy that are not founded upon strong empirical evidence. There is a need for more robust research on individual learning to further understand its relationship with interprofessional teamworking in healthcare.

Realist synthesis is a theory-driven approach for evaluating complex interventions using empirical evidence, which seeks an explanatory analysis of who a complex intervention works for, how, why, and in what circumstances. Interprofessional teamworking in healthcare is one such complex intervention, as teams are influenced by social and organizational factors, which makes them highly variable and context dependent. This article concludes a series of four articles that report on a realist synthesis of interprofessional teamworking. The synthesis identified 13 mechanisms that are reported in the literature to be the underlying processes through which interprofessional teamworking produces its effects. This article explores four of these mechanisms: a shared purpose; critical reflection; innovation; and leadership. These mechanisms together explain how a team sets and maintains its focus and direction. This article highlights that whilst many assumptions are made within the healthcare literature about how these mechanisms operate within teams, these assumptions are not always founded upon strong empirical evidence.