Factors guiding therapist decision making in the rehabilitation of physical function after severely disabling stroke - an ethnographic study.

PURPOSE: Whilst strong evidence supports rehabilitation to improve outcomes post-stroke, there is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation in the most severely disabled group. In an era of evidence-based practice, the aim of the study was to understand what factors guide physiotherapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) to select particular interventions in the rehabilitation of physical function after severely disabling stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An ethnographic study was undertaken over an 18-month period involving five London, UK stroke services. Seventy-nine primary participants (30 PTs, 22 OTs, and 27 stroke survivors) were recruited to the study. Over 400 h of observation, 52 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Study data were analysed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Key factors guiding therapist decision making were clinical expertise, professional role, stroke survivors' clinical presentation, therapist perspectives about stroke recovery, and clinical guidelines. Research evidence, stroke survivors' treatment preferences, organisational type, and pathway design were less influential factors. Therapy practice did not always address the physical needs of severely disabled stroke survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors guided therapist decision making after severely disabling stroke. Alternative ways of therapist working should be considered to address the physical needs of severely disabled stroke survivors more fully.Implications for rehabilitationMultiple factors guide therapist decision making after severely disabling stroke, some of which result in the use of interventions that do not fully address stroke survivors' clinical needs.Therapists should critically reflect upon their personal beliefs and attitudes about severely disabling stroke to reduce potential sources of bias on decision making.Therapists should consider the timing and intensity of therapy delivery as well as their treatment approach to optimise outcomes after severely disabling stroke.

The organization and impacts of clinical research delivery workforce redeployment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative case study of one research-intensive acute hospital trust.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has tested healthcare and research systems around the world, forcing the large-scale reorganization of hospitals, research infrastructure and resources. The United Kingdom has been singled out for the speed and scale of its research response. The efficiency of the United Kingdom's research mobilization was in large part predicated on the pre-existing embeddedness of the clinical research system within the National Health Service (NHS), a public, free-at-point-of-delivery healthcare system. In this paper we discuss the redeployment of the clinical research workforce to support the pandemic clinical services, detailing the process of organizing this redeployment, as well as the impacts redeployment has had on both staff and research delivery at one research-intensive acute NHS trust in London. METHODS: A social science case study of one large research-active NHS trust drawing on data from an online questionnaire; participant observation of key research planning meetings; semi-structured interviews with staff involved in research; and document analysis of emails and official national and trust communications. RESULTS: We found that at our case-study hospital trust, the research workforce was a resource that was effectively redeployed as part of the pandemic response. Research delivery workers were redeployed to clinical roles, to COVID-related research and to work maintaining the research system during the redeployment itself. Redeployed research workers faced some difficulties with technology and communication, but many had a positive experience and saw the redeployment as a significant and valuable moment in their career. CONCLUSIONS: This study explicates the role of the research delivery workforce for the United Kingdom's COVID response. Redeployed research workers facilitated the emergency response by delivering significant amounts of patient care. The public also benefited from having a well-developed research infrastructure in place that was able to flexibly respond to a novel virus. Many research workers feel that the NHS should provide more support for this distinctive workforce.

Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: A multi-method qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research has been central to the global response to COVID-19, and the United Kingdom (UK), with its research system embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), has been singled out globally for the scale and speed of its COVID-19 research response. This paper explores the impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in an NHS Trust and how the embedded research system was adapted and repurposed to support the COVID-19 response. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a multi-method qualitative case study of a research-intensive NHS Trust in London UK, we collected data through a questionnaire (n = 170) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with research staff working in four areas: research governance; research leadership; research delivery; and patient and public involvement. We also observed key NHS Trust research prioritisation meetings (40 hours) and PPI activity (4.5 hours) and analysed documents produced by the Trust and national organisation relating to COVID-19 research. Data were analysed for a descriptive account of the Trust's COVID-19 research response and research staff's experiences. Data were then analysed thematically. Our analysis identifies three core themes: centralisation; pace of work; and new (temporary) work practices. By centralising research prioritisation at both national and Trust levels, halting non-COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff, an increased pace in the setup and delivery of COVID-19-related research was possible. National and Trust-level responses also led to widescale changes in working practices by adapting protocols and developing local processes to maintain and deliver research. These were effective practical solutions borne out of necessity and point to how the research system was able to adapt to the requirements of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The Trust and national COVID-19 response entailed a rapid large-scale reorganisation of research staff, research infrastructures and research priorities. The Trust's local processes that enabled them to enact national policy prioritising COVID-19 research worked well, especially in managing finite resources, and also demonstrate the importance and adaptability of the research workforce. Such findings are useful as we consider how to adapt our healthcare delivery and research practices both at the national and global level for the future. However, as the pandemic continues, research leaders and policymakers must also take into account the short and long term impact of COVID-19 prioritisation on non-COVID-19 health research and the toll of the emergency response on research staff.

"Like a nurse but not a nurse": Clinical Research Practitioners and the evolution of the clinical research delivery workforce in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research is increasing across the United Kingdom. Within the context of a shortage of nurses, trusts have struggled to maintain research capacity. In order to meet staffing demands, trusts have increasingly turned to Clinical Research Practitioners (CRPs) to assist in the delivery of clinical research. Initially an ad hoc workforce, the CRP role is being formalised and professionalised. This study is a close examination of the clinical research delivery workforce at one research-intensive acute trust in the United Kingdom, with a focus on the emerging CRP staff group. METHODS: The study was conducted in a large inner-city teaching hospital (acute trust) in London, United Kingdom. Data were collected between September and December 2017. Twenty-five staff were interviewed across 11 different directorates. Interviews were semi-structured with an overall focus on research staff backgrounds and roles, as well as their perceptions and experiences of careers in research. The data were managed using NVivo 11 software and analysed thematically. RESULTS: CRPs are drawn from a wider pool of educational and employment backgrounds than their nurse colleagues, and actively seek out work in health research. CRPs receive on-the-job training to acquire the competencies that are necessary for them to carry out their work. The CRP role, which began in an ad hoc manner, has become regularised, yet remains to be well defined, which can be a source of frustration for CRPs and those who work with them. CONCLUSIONS: The professionalisation of the CRP workforce represents an opportunity for the health research system to employ research workers who possess a range of in-demand skills and to shore up research capacity in the context of the shortage of nurses.

The social logic of naloxone: Peer administration, harm reduction, and the transformation of social policy.

This paper examines overdose prevention programs based on peer administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone. The data for this study consist of 40 interviews and participant observation of 10 overdose prevention training sessions at harm reduction agencies in the Bronx, New York, conducted between 2010 and 2012. This paper contends that the social logic of peer administration is as central to the success of overdose prevention as is naloxone's pharmacological potency. Whereas prohibitionist drug policies seek to isolate drug users from the spaces and cultures of drug use, harm reduction strategies like peer-administered naloxone treat the social contexts of drug use as crucial resources for intervention. Such programs utilize the expertise, experience, and social connections gained by users in their careers as users. In revaluing the experience of drug users, naloxone facilitates a number of harm reduction goals. But it also raises complex questions about responsibility and risk. This paper concludes with a discussion of how naloxone's social logic illustrates the contradictions within broader neoliberal trends in social policy.