Managing nurse redeployment during the Covid-19 pandemic, lessons for future redeployment: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The mass redeployment of nurses was critical across countries necessitated by the acute health impact of Covid-19. Knowledge was limited regarding how to manage nurse redeployment or the impact that redeployment might have. Redeployment continues, particularly in response to the current staffing crisis and surges such as winter pressures. This study aims to address these gaps in evidence to inform guidance on how best to manage nurse redeployment in practice. OBJECTIVES: First, to understand the processes and underpinning decisions made by managers when managing nurse redeployment prior to and during the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, to identify the lessons that can be learned to improve the management of on-going nurse redeployment. DESIGN: Qualitative study utilising semi-structured interviews and focus groups with nurse managers (ISRCTN: 18172749). SETTING(S): Three acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England with geographical and ethnic diversity, and different Covid-19 contexts. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two nurse managers and four Human Resource advisors responsible for redeploying nurses or receiving and supporting redeployed nurses. METHODS: Participants took part in face-to-face or virtual semi-structured interviews from February 2021 to November 2021 and virtual focus groups from July to December 2021. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were evident in the data, capturing four distinctive phases of the redeployment process. There was a fundamental mismatch between how different parts of the nursing and managerial workforce conceived of their decision-making responsibilities across different phases. This led to managers taking inconsistent and sometimes contradictory approaches when redeploying nurses, and a disconnect between nursing staff at all levels of the chain of command. Furthermore, in conjunction with limited guidance in operationalising redeployment and the distressing experiences vocalised by nurses, nurse managers found nurse redeployment logistically and emotionally challenging; and felt 'caught in the middle' of meeting both their managerial and mentoring responsibilities. This became increasingly challenging during subsequent phases of redeployment and remained challenging once the pandemic waned. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to nurse redeployment in response to the Covid-19 pandemic prioritised nurse staffing numbers over personal well-being. Key principles of good practice relating to nurse redeployment during the Covid-19 pandemic can be applied to improve future redeployment of nurses and support positive outcomes. Having a planned approach for staff redeployment during normal service delivery comprising operational guidance for those tasked with implementing redeployment, that is scalable in a crisis setting, would be beneficial for the nursing workforce.

A systematic review of workplace triggers of emotions in the healthcare environment, the emotions experienced, and the impact on patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare staff deliver patient care in emotionally charged settings and experience a wide range of emotions as part of their work. These emotions and emotional contexts can impact the quality and safety of care. Despite the growing acknowledgement of the important role of emotion, we know very little about what triggers emotion within healthcare environments or the impact this has on patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies to explore the workplace triggers of emotions within the healthcare environment, the emotions experienced in response to these triggers, and the impact of triggers and emotions on patient safety. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Scopus, and CINAHL) to identify relevant literature. Studies were then selected and data synthesized in two stages. A quality assessment of the included studies at stage 2 was undertaken. RESULTS: In stage 1, 90 studies were included from which seven categories of triggers of emotions in the healthcare work environment were identified, namely: patient and family factors, patient safety events and their repercussions, workplace toxicity, traumatic events, work overload, team working and lack of supervisory support. Specific emotions experienced in response to these triggers (e.g., frustration, guilt, anxiety) were then categorised into four types: immediate, feeling states, reflective, and longer-term emotional sequelae. In stage 2, 13 studies that explored the impact of triggers or emotions on patient safety processes/outcomes were included. CONCLUSION: The various triggers of emotion and the types of emotion experienced that have been identified in this review can be used as a framework for further work examining the role of emotion in patient safety. The findings from this review suggest that certain types of emotions (including fear, anger, and guilt) were more frequently experienced in response to particular categories of triggers and that healthcare staff's experiences of negative emotions can have negative effects on patient care, and ultimately, patient safety. This provides a basis for developing and tailoring strategies, interventions, and support mechanisms for dealing with and regulating emotions in the healthcare work environment.

Incivility experiences of racially minoritised hospital staff, consequences for them and implications for patient care: An international scoping review.

Workplace incivility is a pervasive complex problem within health care. Incivility manifests as subtle disrespectful behaviours, which seem inconsequential. However, evidence demonstrates that incivility can be harmful to targets and witnesses through negative emotions, poorer mental health, reduced job satisfaction, diminished performance and compromised patient care. It is unclear to what extent existing research critically explores how ethnicity, culture and racism influence how hospital staff experience incivility. This global scoping review systematically analysed existing research exploring the specific ways incivility manifests and impacts racially minoritised hospital workers. Of 2636 academic and 101 grey literature articles, 32 were included. Incivility experiences were categorised into four themes: (1) Cultural control, (2) Rejection of work contributions, (3) Disempowerment at work and (4) Managerial indifference. The included articles highlighted detrimental consequences, such as negative emotions, silencing, withdrawal and reduced support-seeking behaviours. Few studies presented evidence regarding the negative impacts of incivility on patient care. Racialisation and racial dynamics are a significant factor for hospital-based incivility. Currently we do not know the extent to which racialised incivility is associated directly or, perhaps either via burnout or disengagement, indirectly with poorer care. This knowledge can inform the creation of comprehensive, evidence-based interventions to address this important issue.

Evaluating pharmacological THRomboprophylaxis in Individuals undergoing superficial endoVEnous treatment across NHS and private clinics in the UK: a multi-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial-THRIVE trial.

INTRODUCTION: Endovenous therapy is the first choice management for symptomatic varicose veins in NICE guidelines, with 56-70 000 procedures performed annually in the UK. Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a known complication of endovenous therapy, occurring at a rate of up to 3.4%. Despite 73% of UK practitioners administering pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to reduce VTE, no high-quality evidence supporting this practice exists. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis may have clinical and cost benefit in preventing VTE; however, further evidence is needed. This study aims to establish whether when endovenous therapy is undertaken: a single dose or course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alters the risk of VTE; pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is associated with an increased rate of bleeding events; pharmacological prophylaxis is cost effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multi-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT) will recruit 6660 participants from 40 NHS and private sites across the UK. Participants will be randomised to intervention (single dose or extended course of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis plus compression) or control (compression alone). Participants will undergo a lower limb venous duplex ultrasound scan at 21-28 days post-procedure to identify asymptomatic DVT. The duplex scan will be conducted locally by blinded assessors. Participants will be contacted remotely for follow-up at 7 days and 90 days post-procedure. The primary outcome is imaging-confirmed lower limb DVT with or without symptoms or PE with symptoms within 90 days of treatment. The main analysis will be according to the intention-to-treat principle and will compare the rates of VTE at 90 days, using a repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for any pre-specified strongly prognostic baseline covariates using a mixed effects logistic regression. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Brent Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0261). Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18501431.

PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older age and is characterised by loss of biological reserves across multiple organ systems. These changes associated with frailty mean older people can be vulnerable to sudden, dramatic changes in health because of relatively small problems. Older people with frailty are at increased risk of adverse outcomes including disability, hospitalisation, and care home admission, with associated reduction in quality of life and increased NHS and social care costs. Personalised Care Planning offers an anticipatory, preventative approach to supporting older adults to live independently for longer, but it has not been robustly evaluated in a population of older adults with frailty. METHODS: Following an initial feasibility study, this multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial aims to establish whether personalised care planning for older people improves health-related quality of life. It will recruit 1337 participants from general practices across Yorkshire and Humber and Mid-Mersey in the North of England. Eligible patients will be aged 65 and over with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 or above, living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end-of-life care. Following confirmation of eligibility, informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be individually randomised to the PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER) intervention or usual care in a 2.6:1 allocation ratio. Participants will not be blinded to allocation, but data collection and analysis will be blinded. The intervention will be delivered over 12 weeks by a Personal Independence Co-ordinator worker based within a voluntary sector organisation, Age UK. The primary outcomes are health-related quality of life, measured using both the physical and mental components of the Short-Form 12 Item Health Questionnaire at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprise activities of daily living, self-management capabilities and loneliness, admission to care homes, hospitalisations, and health and social care resource use at 12 months post randomisation. Parallel cost-effectiveness and process evaluations will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: The PROSPER study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised care planning approach for older people with frailty and inform the process of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16123291 .  Registered on  28 August 2020.

An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Graduated Compression Stockings in Addition to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCSs) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. BACKGROUND: Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt on whether GCS confers additional protection against VTE, compared with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. METHODS: The review followed "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42017062655). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched up to November 2022. Randomized trials reporting VTE rate after surgical procedures, utilizing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with or without GCS, were included. The rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related mortality were pooled through fixed and random effects. RESULTS: In a head-to-head meta-analysis, the risk of DVT for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.54-1.36) versus for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (2 studies, 70 events, 2653 participants). The risk of DVT in pooled trial arms for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23-1.25) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (33 trial arms, 1228 events, 14,108 participants). The risk of pulmonary embolism for GCS and pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.0-30.0) (27 trial arms, 32 events, 11,472 participants). There were no between-group differences in VTE-related mortality (27 trial arms, 3 events, 12,982 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from head-to-head meta-analysis and pooled trial arms demonstrates no additional benefit for GCS in preventing VTE and VTE-related mortality. GCS confer a risk of skin complications and an economic burden; current evidence does not support their use for surgical inpatients.

Impact of clinicians' behavior, an educational intervention with mandated blood pressure and the hypotension prediction index software on intraoperative hypotension: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Intraoperative hypotension (IOH) is associated with adverse outcomes. We therefore explored beliefs regarding IOH and barriers to its treatment. Secondarily, we assessed if an educational intervention and mandated mean arterial pressure (MAP), or the implementation of the Hypotension Prediction Index-software (HPI) were associated with a reduction in IOH. METHODS: Structured interviews (n = 27) and questionnaires (n = 84) were conducted to explore clinicians' beliefs and barriers to IOH treatment, in addition to usefulness of HPI questionnaires (n = 14). 150 elective major surgical patients who required invasive blood pressure monitoring were included in three cohorts to assess incidence and time-weighted average (TWA) of hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg). Cohort one received standard care (baseline), the clinicians of cohort two had a training on hypotension and a mandated MAP > 65 mmHg, and patients of the third cohort received protocolized care using the HPI. RESULTS: Clinicians felt challenged to manage IOH in some patients, yet they reported sufficient knowledge and skills. HPI-software was considered useful and beneficial. No difference was found in incidence of IOH between cohorts. TWA was comparable between baseline and education cohort (0.15 mmHg [0.05-0.41] vs. 0.11 mmHg [0.02-0.37]), but was significantly lower in the HPI cohort (0.04 mmHg [0.00 to 0.11], p < 0.05 compared to both). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians believed they had sufficient knowledge and skills, which could explain why no difference was found after the educational intervention. In the HPI cohort, IOH was significantly reduced compared to baseline, therefore HPI-software may help prevent IOH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 17,085,700 on May 9th, 2019.

Evaluating an intervention to improve the safety and experience of transitions from hospital to home for older people (Your Care Needs You): a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Older patients often experience safety issues when transitioning from hospital to home. The 'Your Care Needs You' (YCNY) intervention aims to support older people to 'know more' and 'do more' whilst in hospital so that they are better prepared for managing at home. METHODS: A multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the YCNY intervention. Forty acute hospital wards (clusters) in England from varying medical specialities will be randomised to deliver YCNY or care-as-usual on a 1:1 basis. The primary outcome will be unplanned hospital readmission rates within 30 days of discharge. This will be extracted from routinely collected data of at least 5440 patients (aged 75 years and older) discharged to their own homes during the 4- to 5-month YCNY intervention period. A nested cohort of up to 1000 patients will be recruited to the study to collect secondary outcomes via follow-up questionnaires at 5-, 30- and 90-day post-discharge. These will include measures of patient experience of transitions, patient-reported safety events, quality of life and healthcare resource use. Unplanned hospital readmission rates at 60 and 90 days of discharge will be collected from routine data. A process evaluation (primarily interviews and observations with patients, carers and staff) will be conducted to understand the implementation of the intervention and the contextual factors that shape this, as well as the intervention's underlying mechanisms of action. Fidelity of intervention delivery will also be assessed across all intervention wards. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the YCNY intervention which aims to improve patient safety and experience for older people during transitions of care. The process evaluation will generate insights about how the YCNY intervention was implemented, what elements of the intervention work and for whom, and how to optimise its implementation so that it can be delivered with high fidelity in routine service contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio: 44559; ISTCRN: ISRCTN17062524. Registered on 11/02/2020.

Exploring the "Black Box" of Recommendation Generation in Local Health Care Incident Investigations: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Incident investigation remains a cornerstone of patient safety management and improvement, with recommendations meant to drive action and improvement. There is little empirical evidence about how-in real-world hospital settings-recommendations are generated or judged for effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: Our research questions, concerning internal hospital investigations, were as follows: (1) What approaches to incident investigation are used before the generation of recommendations? (2) What are the processes for generating recommendations after a patient safety incident investigation? (3) What are the number and types of recommendations proposed? (4) What criteria are used, by hospitals or study authors, to assess the quality or strength of recommendations made? METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a scoping review. Studies were included if they reported data from investigations undertaken and recommendations generated within hospitals. Review questions were answered with content analysis, and extracted recommendations were categorized and counted. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Root cause analysis was the dominant investigation approach, but methods for recommendation generation were unclear. A total of 4579 recommendations were extracted, largely focusing on individuals' behavior rather than addressing deficiencies in systems (<7% classified as strong). Included studies reported recommendation effectiveness as judged against predefined "action" hierarchies or by incident recurrence, which was not comprehensively reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the ubiquity of incident investigation, there is a surprising lack of evidence concerning how recommendation generation is or should be undertaken. Little evidence is presented to show that investigations or recommendations result in improved care quality or safety. We contend that, although incident investigations remain foundational to patient safety, more enquiry is needed about how this important work is actually achieved and whether it can contribute to improving quality of care.

Interventions for reducing anticholinergic medication burden in older adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Anticholinergic medications block the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain and peripheral nervous system. Many medications have anticholinergic properties, and the cumulative effect of these medications is termed anticholinergic burden. Increased anticholinergic burden can have short-term side effects such as dry mouth, blurred vision and urinary retention as well as long-term effects including dementia, worsening physical function and falls. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA) looking at randomised controlled trials addressing interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older adults. RESULTS: We identified seven papers suitable for inclusion in our SR and MA. Interventions included multi-disciplinary involvement in medication reviews and deprescribing of AC medications. Pooled data revealed no significant difference in outcomes between control and intervention group for falls (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52-1.11, n = 647), cognition (mean difference = 1.54, 95% CI: -0.04 to 3.13, n = 405), anticholinergic burden (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.18, n = 710) or quality of life (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.12, n = 461). DISCUSSION: Overall, there was no significant difference with interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden. As we did not see a significant change in anticholinergic burden scores following interventions, it is likely other outcomes would not change. Short follow-up time and lack of training and support surrounding successful deprescribing may have contributed.

Feedback for Emergency Ambulance Staff: A National Review of Current Practice Informed by Realist Evaluation Methodology.

Research suggests that feedback in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) positively affects quality of care and professional development. However, the mechanisms by which feedback achieves its effects still need to be better understood across healthcare settings. This study aimed to understand how United Kingdom (UK) ambulance services provide feedback for EMS professionals and develop a programme theory of how feedback works within EMS, using a mixed-methods, realist evaluation framework. A national cross-sectional survey was conducted to identify feedback initiatives in UK ambulance services, followed by four in-depth case studies involving qualitative interviews and documentary analysis. We used qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics to analyse survey responses from 40 prehospital feedback initiatives, alongside retroductive analysis of 17 interviews and six documents from case study sites. Feedback initiatives mainly provided individual patient outcome feedback through "pull" initiatives triggered by staff requests. Challenges related to information governance were identified. Our programme theory of feedback to EMS professionals encompassed context (healthcare professional and organisational characteristics), mechanisms (feedback and implementation characteristics, psychological reasoning) and outcomes (implementation, staff and service outcomes). This study suggests that most UK ambulance services use a range of feedback initiatives and provides 24 empirically based testable hypotheses for future research.

High spatial and temporal variation in biomass composition of the novel aquaculture target Ecklonia radiata.

The biomass composition of kelp varies within species both spatially and temporally. However, this variation in biomass quality has not yet been investigated for the native kelp Ecklonia radiata within New Zealand, where the kelp is a target for the emerging seaweed aquaculture industry. In this study we quantified spatial and temporal variation in the composition of E. radiata biomass, collected from 12 sites around the North Island of New Zealand and from 12 months across a full year at a single site (n = 138). High spatial variation was detected for most components, including alginate (range: 16.6 - 22.7% DW, n = 12), fucoidan (range: 1.2 - 1.6% DW, n = 12), phlorotannins (range: 4.8 - 9.3% DW, n = 72), and glucose (range: 9.3 - 22.6% DW, n = 12). The biomass composition of E. radiata varied significantly among sites but with no clear patterns among regions, indicating that geographic differences were mostly local rather than regional, possibly due to site-specific environmental conditions. Significant temporal variation (measured by positive autocorrelation between months) was detected in the content of lipids, proteins, glucose, guluronic acid, nitrogen, phosphorous, iodine, arsenic, and mercury, and for the mannuronic to guluronic acid (M:G) ratio. Overall, E. radiata had comparable biomass composition to that of commercially grown northern hemisphere species but with substantially higher phlorotannin content. These results demonstrate that E. radiata could be a viable southern hemisphere alternative for a broad range of commercial applications. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10811-023-02969-2.

Unpacking the Cinderella black box of complex intervention development through the Partners at Care Transitions (PACT) programme of research.

INTRODUCTION: Complex intervention development has been described as the 'Cinderella' black box in health services research. Greater transparency in the intervention development process is urgently needed to help reduce research waste. METHODS: We applied a new consensus-based framework for complex intervention development to our programme of research, in which we developed an intervention to improve the safety and experience of care transitions for older people. Through this process, we aimed to reflect on the framework's utility for intervention development and identify any important gaps within it to support its continued development. FINDINGS: The framework was a useful tool for transparent reporting of the process of complex intervention development. We identified potential 'action' gaps in the framework including 'consolidation of evidence' and 'development of principles' that could bracket and steer decision-making in the process. CONCLUSIONS: We consider that the level of transparency demonstrated in this report, aided through use of the framework, is essential in the quest for reducing research waste. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We have involved our dedicated patient and public involvement group in all work packages of this programme of research. Specifically, they attended and contributed to co-design workshops and contributed to finalizing the intervention for the pilot evaluation. Staff also participated by attending co-design workshops, helping us to prioritize content ideas for the intervention and supporting the development of intervention components outside of the workshops.

Types and effects of feedback for emergency ambulance staff: a systematic mixed studies review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extensive research has been conducted into the effects of feedback interventions within many areas of healthcare, but prehospital emergency care has been relatively neglected. Exploratory work suggests that enhancing feedback and follow-up to emergency medical service (EMS) staff might provide staff with closure and improve clinical performance. Our aim was to summarise the literature on the types of feedback received by EMS professionals and its effects on the quality and safety of patient care, staff well-being and professional development. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis, including primary research studies of any method published in peer-reviewed journals. Studies were included if they contained information on systematic feedback to emergency ambulance staff regarding their performance. Databases searched from inception were MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and Web of Science, with searches last updated on 2 August 2022. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data analysis followed a convergent integrated design involving simultaneous narrative synthesis and random effects multilevel meta-analyses. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 3183 articles, with 48 studies meeting inclusion criteria after title/abstract screening and full-text review. Interventions were categorised as audit and feedback (n=31), peer-to-peer feedback (n=3), postevent debriefing (n=2), incident-prompted feedback (n=1), patient outcome feedback (n=1) or a combination thereof (n=4). Feedback was found to have a moderate positive effect on quality of care and professional development with a pooled effect of d=0.50 (95% CI 0.34, 0.67). Feedback to EMS professionals had large effects in improving documentation (d=0.73 (0.00, 1.45)) and protocol adherence (d=0.68 (0.12, 1.24)), as well as small effects in enhancing cardiac arrest performance (d=0.46 (0.06, 0.86)), clinical decision-making (d=0.47 (0.23, 0.72)), ambulance times (d=0.43 (0.12, 0.74)) and survival rates (d=0.22 (0.11, 0.33)). The between-study heterogeneity variance was estimated at σ2=0.32 (95% CI 0.22, 0.50), with an I2 value of 99% (95% CI 98%, 99%), indicating substantial statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated that the evidence base currently does not support a clear single point estimate of the pooled effect of feedback to EMS staff as a single intervention type due to study heterogeneity. Further research is needed to provide guidance and frameworks supporting better design and evaluation of feedback interventions within EMS. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020162600.

In-hospital stress and patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital inpatients are exposed to high levels of stress during hospitalisation that may increase susceptibility to major adverse health events post-hospitalisation (known as post-hospital syndrome). However, the existing evidence base has not been reviewed and the magnitude of this relationship remains unknown. Therefore, the aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) synthesise existing evidence and to determine the strength of the relationship between in-hospital stress and patient outcomes, and 2) determine if this relationship differs between (i) in-hospital vs post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective vs objective outcome measures. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to February 2023 was conducted. Included studies reported a measure of perceived and appraised stress while in hospital, and at least one patient outcome. A random-effects model was generated to pool correlations (Pearson's r), followed by sub-group and sensitivity analyses. The study protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237017). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies, comprising 16 effects and 1,832 patients, satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included. A small-to-medium association was found: as in-hospital stress increased, patient outcomes deteriorated (r = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.12-0.26; I2 = 63.6; p < 0.001). This association was significantly stronger for (i) in-hospital versus post-hospital outcomes, and (ii) subjective versus objective outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses indicated that our findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of psychological stress experienced by hospital inpatients are associated with poorer patient outcomes. However, more high-quality, larger scale studies are required to better understand the association between in-hospital stressors and adverse outcomes.

Identifying Safety Practices Perceived as Low Value: An Exploratory Survey of Healthcare Staff in the United Kingdom and Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Up to 30% of healthcare spending is considered unnecessary and represents systematic waste. While much attention has been given to low-value clinical tests and treatments, much less has focused on identifying low-value safety practices in healthcare settings. With increasing recognition of the problem of "safety clutter" in organizations, it is important to consider deimplementing safety practices that do not benefit patients, to create the time needed to deliver effective, person-centered, and safe care. This study surveyed healthcare staff to identify safety practices perceived to be of low value. METHODS: Purposive and snowball sampling was used. Data collection was conducted from April 2018 to November 2019 (United Kingdom) and May 2020 to November 2020 (Australia). Participants completed the survey online or in hard copy to identify practices they perceived to not contribute to safe care. Responses were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1394 responses from 1041 participants were analyzed. Six hundred sixty-three responses were collected from 526 UK participants and 515 Australian participants contributed 731 responses. Frequently identified categories of practices identified included "paperwork," "duplication," and "intentional rounding." Five cross-cutting themes (e.g., covering ourselves) offered an underpinning rationale for why staff perceived the practices to be of low value. CONCLUSIONS: Staff identified safety practices that they perceived to be low value. In healthcare systems under strain, removing existing low-value practices should be a priority. Careful evaluation of these identified safety practices is required to determine whether they are appropriate for deimplementation and, if not, to explore how to better support healthcare workers to perform them.

A glimpse behind the organisational curtain: A dramaturgical analysis exploring the ways healthcare staff engage with online patient feedback 'front' and 'backstage' at three hospital Trusts in England.

Healthcare staff are encouraged to use feedback from their patients to inform service and quality improvement. Receiving patient feedback via online channels is a relatively new phenomenon that has rarely been conceptualised. Further, the implications of a wide, varied and unknown(able) audience being able to view and interact with online patient feedback are yet to be understood. We applied a theoretical lens of dramaturgy to a large ethnographic dataset, collected across three NHS Trusts during 2019/2020. We found that organisations demonstrated varying levels of 'preparedness to perform' online, from invisibility through to engaging in public conversation with patients within a wider mission for transparency. Restrictive 'cast lists' of staff able to respond to patients was the hallmark of one organisation, whereas another devolved responding responsibility amongst a wide array of multidisciplinary staff. The visibility of patient-staff interactions had the potential to be culturally disruptive, dichotomously invoking either apprehensions of reputational threat or providing windows of opportunity. We surmise that a transparent and conversational feedback response frontstage aligns with the ability to better prioritise backstage improvement. Legitimising the autonomous frontstage activity of diverse staff groups may help shift organisational culture, and gradually ripple outwards a shared responsibility for transparent improvement.

Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform.

INTRODUCTION: Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. METHODS: Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. CONCLUSION: Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development.

Caring in a crisis: Understanding the stressors and uplifts for National Health Service frontline staff through the lens of clinical psychologists.

The unprecedented public health crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in a significant challenge to the delivery of healthcare that has rarely been experienced before. The stress already faced by healthcare staff working in the National Health Service (NHS) has been further exacerbated during Covid-19, putting them at risk of adverse mental health outcomes. Through the lens of clinical psychologists who had provided support to frontline healthcare staff during the Covid-19 pandemic, this study aimed to better understand the stressors and uplifts healthcare staff experienced during Covid-19, the impact of these on the wellbeing of staff and patient care, and to examine the support needed to deal with the impact of a crisis. A qualitative study design using a combination of diaries followed by semi-structured interviews was utilised. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. The following five themes represented the stressors and uplifts experienced by NHS frontline healthcare staff during Covid-19, the impact on staff wellbeing and patient care: facing change; risks of working in the NHS environment; transcending the negatives; challenging professional values and haunted by patient deaths. The findings also highlight the importance of providing psychological support and suggest the need to continue to provide this support service to help NHS staff manage through subsequent waves of the pandemic. These findings can contribute towards both the management of the current Covid-19 pandemic and other similar crises in the future.