Utilising primary care electronic health records to deliver the ALABAMA randomised controlled trial of penicillin allergy assessment.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic health records (EHR) to provide real-world data for research is established, but using EHR to deliver randomised controlled trials (RCTs) more efficiently is less developed. The Allergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) RCT evaluated a penicillin allergy assessment pathway versus usual clinical care in a UK primary care setting. The aim of this paper is to describe how EHRs were used to facilitate efficient delivery of a large-scale randomised trial of a complex intervention embracing efficient participant identification, supporting minimising GP workload, providing accurate post-intervention EHR updates of allergy status, and facilitating participant follow up and outcome data collection. The generalisability of the EHR approach and health economic implications of EHR in clinical trials will be reported in the main ALABAMA trial cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A descriptive account of the adaptation of functionality within SystmOne used to deliver/facilitate multiple trial processes from participant identification to outcome data collection. RESULTS: An ALABAMA organisation group within SystmOne was established which allowed sharing of trial functions/materials developed centrally by the research team. The 'ALABAMA unit' within SystmOne was also created and provided a secure efficient environment to access participants' EHR data. Processes of referring consented participants, allocating them to a trial arm, and assigning specific functions to the intervention arm were developed by adapting tools such as templates, reports, and protocols which were already available in SystmOne as well as pathways to facilitate allergy de-labelling processes and data retrieval for trial outcome analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ALABAMA is one of the first RCTs to utilise SystmOne EHR functionality and data across the RCT delivery, demonstrating feasibility and applicability to other primary care RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04108637, registered 05/03/2019. ISRCTN: ISRCTN20579216.

A Thematic Synthesis of the Experiences of Social Prescribing Among Patients in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing connects patients to resources or activities to meet their non-medical needs. In the UK, it is often implemented in primary care. In the social prescribing pathway, patients are directed to link workers to identify suitable solutions for their needs such as art workshops or welfare benefit guidance. Social prescribing marks a notable transition from traditional medical treatments to more comprehensive strategies focusing on holistic health and wellbeing strategies. Insights from patient experiences can improve the development of social prescribing to better meet their needs. This understanding can aid in improving the delivery and outcomes of social prescribing. AIM: To synthesise qualitative research on the experiences of social prescribing among patients in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative systematic review - using thematic synthesis for peer-reviewed papers focused on experiences of social prescribing users in the UK. METHOD: An exhaustive search was performed in six databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, and SOCIAL SCIENCE CITATION INDEX via Web of Science. The CASP tool for qualitative research was used for quality assessment and PRISMA 2020 Checklist was used to ensure the report transparency. RESULT: Titles and abstracts of 1,269 papers were screened. In total, 85 papers were full text-screened, and 19 studies were included in the review. Five analytical themes were developed from these papers: (a) Searching for hope in times of adversity; (b) Variability in temporal responsiveness; (c) Feeling supported and empowered by the social prescribing pathway; (d) Sustained change from a positive response; (e) Misalignment producing no response. CONCLUSION: Patients might experience lasting advantages from social prescribing if it aligns with their needs and expectations. Results highlighted the importance of matching social prescribing referral with patients' readiness to engage. Therefore, it is recommended that healthcare professionals evaluate patient suitability prior to beginning a social prescribing referral.

What can we learn from speaking to asthma patients more than once? The power of qualitative longitudinal design in primary care research.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative Longitudinal Research (QLR) has a long tradition in a variety of social science disciplines and is increasingly used in applied healthcare research. QLR can provide insights into the nature, causes and consequences of change (or its absence). However, its use in primary care research is limited. AIM: Drawing on a recent study looking at experiences of asthma patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic over time, we highlight the opportunities in using longitudinal qualitative methods in primary care research. METHOD: We conducted a qualitative longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews with patients with asthma from four GP practices across diverse regions including Thames Valley, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire, and North West Coast. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive temporal thematic analysis and a trajectory approach. RESULTS: Forty-six interviews conducted with 18 patients over an 8-month period of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that patients felt less vulnerable as the pandemic subsided, but the process of making sense of risk was dynamic and influenced by multiple factors. Patients relied on self-management strategies, and with time, highlighted that they had limited opportunities to discuss their asthma with health professionals. As time progressed, face-to-face reviews appeared more necessary for certain aspects, such as physical examination and patient-led discussions of sensitive or broader issues associated with asthma, including mental health. CONCLUSION: QLR has much to offer primary care research allowing exploration of views and experiences of a variety of participants over time and following them through important transitions.

An evaluation of the national testing response during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a multistage mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the UK government established a large-scale testing programme to rapidly identify individuals in England who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and had COVID-19. This comprised part of the UK government's COVID-19 response strategy, to protect those at risk of severe COVID-19 disease and death and to reduce the burden on the health system. To assess the success of this approach, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) commissioned an independent evaluation of the activities delivered by the National Health System testing programme in England. The primary purpose of this evaluation will be to capture key learnings from the roll-out of testing to different target populations via various testing services between October 2020 and March 2022 and to use these insights to formulate recommendations for future pandemic preparedness strategy. In this protocol, we detail the rationale, approach and study design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed study involves a stepwise mixed-methods approach, aligned with established methods for the evaluation of complex interventions in health, to retrospectively assess the combined impact of key asymptomatic and symptomatic testing services nationally. The research team will first develop a theory of change, formulated in collaboration with testing service stakeholders, to understand the causal pathways and intended and unintended outcomes of each testing service and explore contextual impacts on each testing service's intended outcomes. Insights gained will help identify indicators to evaluate how the combined aims of the testing programme were achieved, using a mixed-methods approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was granted ethics approval by the UKHSA Research Ethics and Governance Group (reference NR0347). All relevant ethics guidelines will be followed throughout. Findings arising from this evaluation will be used to inform lessons learnt and recommendations for UKHSA on appropriate pandemic preparedness testing programme designs; findings will also be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, a publicly available report to be published online and at academic conferences. The final report of findings from the evaluation will be used as part of a portfolio of evidence produced for the independent COVID-19 government inquiry in the UK. TRANSPARENCY DECLARATION: The lead author (the manuscript's guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate and transparent account of the study being reported; no important aspects of the study have been omitted, and any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.

Decision to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Testing for COVID-19 was a key component of the UK's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This strategy relied on positive individuals self-isolating to reduce transmission, making isolation the lynchpin in the public health approach. Therefore, we scoped evidence to systematically identify and categorise barriers and facilitators to compliance with self-isolation guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, to inform public health strategies in future pandemics. DESIGN: A rapid scoping review was conducted. SEARCH STRATEGY: Key terms were used to search literature databases (PubMed, Scopus and the WHO COVID-19 Research Database, on 7 November 2022), Google Scholar and stakeholder-identified manuscripts, ultimately including evidence published in English from UK-based studies conducted between 2020 and 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted and synthesised into themes, organised broadly into capability, opportunity and motivation, and reviewed with key stakeholders from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). RESULTS: We included 105 sources, with 63 identified from UKHSA and used to inform their decision-making during the pandemic. Influences on the decision to comply with isolation guidance were categorised into six themes: perceived ability to isolate; information and guidance; logistics; social influences, including trust; perceived value; and perceived consequences. Individuals continuously assessed these factors in deciding whether or not to comply with guidance and self-isolate. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions to self-isolate after a positive test were influenced by multiple factors, including individuals' beliefs, concerns, priorities and personal circumstances. Future testing strategies must facilitate meaningful financial, practical and mental health support to allow individuals to overcome the perceived and actual negative consequences of isolating. Clear, consistent communication of the purpose and procedures of isolating will also be critical to support compliance with self-isolation guidance, and should leverage people's perceived value in protecting others. Building public trust is also essential, but requires investment before the next pandemic starts.

Selling antibiotics without prescriptions among community pharmacies and drug outlets: a simulated client study from Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Selling antibiotics without prescriptions is mostly illegal worldwide, including in Ghana, and promotes antimicrobial resistance. We evaluated the prevalence and practice of selling antibiotics without prescriptions among community pharmacies (CPs) and drug outlets, for the first time, in Ghana to quantify and characterize this issue to inform future interventions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two scenarios utilizing the Simulated Client Methodology were enacted: an upper respiratory tract infection of viral origin (scenario one); and pediatric diarrhea (scenario two). CPs/Outlets were selected by stratified proportional random sampling from four metropolitan cities (~14% of the total Ghanaian population). Selling of antibiotics was assessed at three demand levels and its overall prevalence was estimated, then stratified by the study variables. RESULTS: Out of the 265 sampled CPs/outlets, the prevalence of selling antibiotic without prescription was 88.3% (n = 234/265), with variations not only across the four regions [92.5% (n = 123/133) in Kumasi, 87.5% (n = 14/16) in Cape Coast, 84.1% (n = 69/82) in Accra, and 82.4% (n = 28/34) in Tamale] but also across CPs [90% (n = 121/134)] and drug outlets [86% (n = 113/131)]. CONCLUSIONS: A very high prevalence/sub-optimal practice of selling antibiotics without prescriptions was found. This highlights the need to increase compliance with antibiotic dispensing legislation through evidence-based interventions including education of key stakeholders.

Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN20579216.

Stakeholders' views and experiences on implementing new diagnostics in primary care to support management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study.

Background: The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care for respiratory tract infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for the management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) have been developed to help optimize antibiotic prescribing. While some countries in Europe have adopted these tests in primary care settings, most have not. Stakeholders, such as policy-makers, regulators, the diagnostic industry, and scientific associations, have roles in the implementation of new diagnostics in primary care. The aim of this study is to explore these stakeholders' views and experiences, and identify areas of unmet need relating to POCT implementation. Methods: Stakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Between March 2021 and May 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with stakeholders in Belgium, the UK and from European Union (EU) -level organizations. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-six stakeholders participated: eleven from EU-level organizations, seven from Belgium, and eight from the UK. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders felt a balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches were an optimal strategy to the implementation of POCTs. Stakeholders stressed the need to engage with clinicians to act as champions for tests to help raise awareness and generate new evidence on how tests are used. While acknowledging the potential of POCTs for improving patient outcomes and impacting antibiotic prescribing behavior, some raised concerns on how tests would be used in practice and wished to see national data on effectiveness. COVID-19 catalyzed the use of tests, but stakeholders were pessimistic that processes for approving diagnostics during the pandemic would be replicated in the future. Conclusion: Stakeholders provided recommendations for research and practice. Robust reimbursement policies could alleviate financial burden from clinicians and patients, encouraging practices to adopt POCTs. Industry is likely to benefit from engaging as early on as possible with other stakeholders. Due to uncertainty among stakeholders on the impact of POCTs on antibiotic prescribing, further evidence is needed to understand how practices adopt POCTs and the implications for stewardship. Monitoring how POCTs are used can inform future guidelines on successful diagnostic implementation.

Management of asthma in primary care in the changing context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative longitudinal study with patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected asthma monitoring in primary care, but exploration of patients' views and their experiences of managing their asthma and seeking help from primary care during the pandemic has been limited. AIM: To investigate patients' experiences of asthma management in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews with patients from four GP practices across diverse regions including Thames Valley, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire, and North West Coast. METHOD: Interviews were undertaken with patients with asthma, who were usually managed in primary care. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive temporal thematic analysis and a trajectory approach. RESULTS: Forty-six interviews were conducted with 18 patients over an 8-month period that covered contrasting stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients felt less vulnerable as the pandemic subsided, but the process of making sense of risk was dynamic and influenced by multiple factors. Patients relied on self-management strategies, but felt that routine asthma reviews should still have been conducted during the pandemic and highlighted that they had limited opportunities to discuss their asthma with health professionals. Patients with well-controlled symptoms felt that remote reviews were largely satisfactory, but still thought face-to-face reviews were necessary for certain aspects, such as physical examination and patient-led discussions of sensitive or broader issues associated with asthma, including mental health. CONCLUSION: The dynamic nature of patients' perception of risk throughout the pandemic highlighted the need for greater clarity regarding personal risk. Having an opportunity to discuss their asthma is important to patients, even when access to face-to-face consultations in primary care is more restricted than usual.

The experiences of patients ill with COVID-19-like symptoms and the role of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in supporting them: A qualitative study in eight European countries during the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe. OBJECTIVES: To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection. CONCLUSION: Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Preservation fluids of heritage anatomical specimens - a challenge for modern science. Studies of the origin, composition and microbiological contamination of old museum collections.

Anatomical museums preserve specimens of great historical value and undiscovered scientific potential. However, frequently these collections lack documentation of the techniques of preparation and the composition of preservative substances (conservation principles). This poses a huge problem for the care and preservation of these materials, more so because understanding this issue requires knowledge of fundamentals from different scientific disciplines. The aim of the research was to obtain information about the composition of substances used to preserve historic specimens, as well as to conduct a microbiological assessment of the specimens to detect possible factors causing their deterioration. Furthermore, we wanted to fill an existing gap in the literature, as there is a lack of reports on analytical methods that could be successfully applied by anatomists involved in the daily care of museum collections in human anatomy departments. The starting point was the analysis of the sources and history of the collections, on which basis the choice of research methods was made. Methods based on simple chemical reactions and specialised methods (such as gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy) were used in the analyses of the composition of fluids. Microbiological analyses were based on culture and isolation methods, analysis of microscopy slides and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry analysis. As a result of these analyses, some components of the preservative mixtures and their concentrations were determined. The presence of methanol, ethanol, formaldehyde and glycerol was detected, among other chemicals. The concentrations of these substances were different between the samples and their determination required the use of a variety of methods suitable for the individual components of the preservative mixture. In microbiological tests, both bacteria and fungi were isolated from swabs taken from anatomical specimens. The bacterial flora was less numerous than the fungal flora. Among the bacteria, environmental Gram-positive Bacillus cereus, Bacillus thuringiensis and a rare bacterium of the Cupriavidus genus were isolated, whereas among the fungal organisms, the yeast-like fungi Candida boidinii and Geotrichum silvicola as well as mould fungi Penicillium sp. and Fusarium sp. were detected. However, the microscopic evaluation showed a greater diversity of microorganisms, which may be related to the fact that many environmental bacteria cannot be cultured using classical methods, but can be observed under the microscope. The results of the research made it possible to draw conclusions about the mutual influence of physical, chemical, and microbiological factors on the condition of historical anatomical specimens. In the course of the research, information was obtained on the processes which could have taken place during the storage of these collections. Maintaining the integrity of a container housing a preserved anatomical specimen has a major impact on maintaining the concentration of preservative fluid and keeping the specimen environment sterile. Many conservation procedures for historical specimens carried out nowadays pose a risk of destroying valuable specimens, as well as a health risk for the person carrying out the work. The exploration of the topic of conservation of anatomical specimens, especially those that lack documentation of their origin, is a key issue in current research on historical collections of anatomical specimens.

Re-examining advice to complete antibiotic courses: a qualitative study with clinicians and patients.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic treatment duration may be longer than sometimes needed. Stopping antibiotics early, rather than completing pre-set antibiotic courses, may help reduce unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AIM: To identify clinicians' and patients' views on stopping antibiotics when better (SAWB) for urinary tract infections (UTIs), and to explore comparisons with other acute infections. DESIGN & SETTING: An exploratory qualitative study with general practice clinicians and patients in England. METHOD: Primary care clinicians and patients who had recent UTI experience were recruited in England. Remote one-to-one interviews with clinicians and patients, and one focus group with patients, were conducted. Data were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Eleven clinicians (seven GPs) and 19 patients (14 with experience of recurrent and/or chronic UTIs) were included. All participants considered SAWB unfamiliar and contradictory to well-known advice to complete antibiotic courses, but were interested in the evidence for risks and benefits of SAWB. Clinicians were amenable if evidence and guidelines supported it, whereas patients were more averse because of concerns about the risk of UTI recurrence and/or complications and AMR. Participants viewed SAWB as potentially more appropriate for longer antibiotic courses and other infections (with longer courses and lower risk of recurrence and/or complications). Participants stressed the need for unambiguous advice and SAWB as part of shared decision making and personalised advice. CONCLUSION: Patients were less accepting of SAWB, whereas clinicians were more amenable to it. Patients and clinicians require good evidence that this novel approach to self-determining antibiotic duration is safe and beneficial. If evidence based, SAWB should be offered with an explanation of why the advice differs from the 'complete the course' instruction, and a clear indication of when exactly to stop antibiotics should be given.

Terra Incognita in anatomical museology - A literature review from the perspective of evidence-based care.

BACKGROUND: The care of historical collections in anatomical museums is a highly specialized subject requiring advanced knowledge. When searching for practical information on this subject, the authors were not able to find appropriate literature based on scientific research. The absence of this literature is probably due to the specialized nature of the subject and the poorly defined classification of this type of museum. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic literature review to identify (i) the current state of knowledge of anatomical museology and (ii) the nature and determinants of ongoing research on anatomical museum objects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the main electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus) was conducted to identify relevant studies. The records retrieved were categorized according to thematic similarity and scientific content. Based on these groupings, statistics were created based on the number of eligible papers in each particular group. RESULTS: 61 % of the papers retrieved addressed the history, social issues, or related aspects of contemporary museology; 8 % were technical papers; and 31 % research papers, of which only 8 % were focused on the museum object as the topic of the research. The paper retrieved showed a predominance of works in cultural studies, with surprisingly few applicable to museum practice. Furthermore, there was a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the classification of anatomical museums. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical museology is a poorly defined concept in the scientific literature and it is a rare topic in contemporary work by anatomical practitioners. The literature review revealed that the debate about the fate of anatomical museums encompasses a broad spectrum of diverse, often disparate scientific fields as well as economic factors that influence the present status and future of these institutions. For these reasons, museum object research is problematic in design, may not be considered worthwhile, or is unattractive from an institutional perspective. The literature survey showed that there is a paucity of work in the available modern literature that provides significant support for museum anatomists.

Conducting rapid qualitative interview research during the COVID-19 pandemic-Reflections on methodological choices.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, setting up studies in time to gather relevant, real-world data enables researchers to capture current views and experiences, focus on practicalities on the ground, and deliver actionable results. Delivering high quality rapid studies in healthcare poses several challenges even in non-emergency situations. There is an expanding literature discussing benefits and challenges of conducting rapid research, yet there are relatively few examples related to methodological dilemmas and decisions that researchers may face when conducting rapid studies. In rapidly-changing emergency contexts, some of these challenges may be more easily overcome, while others may be unique to the emergency, magnified, or emerge in different ways. In this manuscript, we discuss our reflections and lessons learnt across the research process when conducting rapid qualitative interview studies in the context of a healthcare emergency, focusing on methodological issues. By this we mean the challenging considerations and pragmatic choices we made, and their downstream impacts, that shaped our studies. We draw on our extensive combined experience of delivering several projects during the COVID-19 pandemic in both single and multi-country settings, where we implemented rapid studies, or rapidly adapted an existing study. In the context of these studies, we discuss two main considerations, with a particular focus on the complexities, multiple facets, and trade-offs involved in: (i) team-based approaches to qualitative studies; and (ii) timely and rapid data collection, analysis and dissemination. We contribute a transparent discussion of these issues, describing them, what helped us to deal with them, and which issues have been difficult to overcome. We situate our discussion of arising issues in relation to existing literature, to offer broader recommendations while also identifying gaps in current understandings of how to deal with these methodological challenges. We thus identify key considerations, lessons, and possibilities for researchers implementing rapid studies in healthcare emergencies and beyond. We aim to promote transparency in reporting, assist other researchers in making informed choices, and consequently contribute to the development of the rapid qualitative research.

The value, challenges and practical considerations of conducting qualitative research on antimicrobial stewardship in primary care.

In order to design appropriate antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, it is crucial to understand challenges to tackling antibiotic resistance (AMR) specific to each healthcare setting. Antibiotic prescribing in primary care accounts for most prescriptions with a significant proportion considered clinically inappropriate. Qualitative research has a long history in social sciences, but its value and contribution are still contested in medical journals including in the AMR/AMS field. However, through its focus on understanding, meaning making and explaining, qualitative research can offer insights in how to improve AMS efforts in primary care. This paper provides an overview of unique considerations, contributions and challenges related to using qualitative research in AMS to help the AMS community new to qualitative research to utilize its potential most fully. First, we discuss specific considerations for AMS in relation to the stages of conducting a qualitative study, including identifying a research question and choosing a suitable methodology; sampling appropriate participants; planning a recruitment strategy; choosing a method of data collection; and conducting data analysis. These are illustrated with examples of qualitative AMS studies in primary care. Second, we highlight the importance of patient and public involvement throughout all stages of the project and ensuring quality in qualitative AMS research. Finally, drawing on these considerations, we make a further case for the value and contribution of qualitative methodologies in AMS/AMR research while outlining future directions for both AMS and qualitative research, including the need for studies with diverse actors; interdisciplinary collaborations; and complex decisions on methodologies and timelines.

Experiences and concerns of health workers throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A longitudinal qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the experiences and concerns of health workers (HWs), and how they changed, throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: Longitudinal, qualitative study with HWs involved in patient management or delivery of care related to COVID-19 in general practice, emergency departments and hospitals. Participants were identified through snowballing. Semi-structured telephone or video interviews were conducted between February 2020 and February 2021, audio-recorded, summarised, and transcribed. Data were analysed longitudinally using framework and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 105 interviews with 14 participants and identified three phases corresponding with shifts in HWs' experiences and concerns. (1) Emergency and mobilisation phase (late winter-spring 2020), with significant rapid shifts in responsibilities, required skills, and training, and challenges in patient care. (2) Consolidation and preparation phase (summer-autumn 2020), involving gradual return to usual care and responsibilities, sense of professional development and improvement in care, and focus on learning and preparing for future. (3) Exhaustion and survival phase (autumn 2020-winter 2021), entailing return of changes in responsibilities, focus on balancing COVID-19 and non-COVID care (until becoming overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases), and concerns about longer-term impacts of unceasing pressure on health services. Participants' perceptions of COVID-19 risk and patient/public attitudes changed throughout the year, and tiredness and weariness turned into exhaustion. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed a long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HWs' experiences and concerns related to changes in their roles, provision of care, and personal wellbeing. Despite mobilisation in the emergency phase, and trying to learn from this, HWs' experiences seemed to be similar or worse in the second wave partly due to many COVID-19 cases. The findings highlight the importance of supporting HWs and strengthening system-level resilience (e.g., with resources, processes) to enable them to respond to current and future demands and emergencies.

Implementing collaborative care for major depression in a cancer center: An observational study using mixed-methods.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation of a collaborative care (CC) screening and treatment program for major depression in people with cancer, found to be effective in clinical trials, into routine outpatient care of a cancer center. METHOD: A mixed-methods observational study guided by the RE-AIM implementation framework using quantitative and qualitative data collected over five years. RESULTS: Program set-up took three years and required more involvement of CC experts than anticipated. Barriers to implementation were uncertainty about whether oncology or psychiatry owned the program and the hospital's organizational complexity. Selecting and training CC team members was a major task. 90% (14,412/16,074) of patients participated in depression screening and 61% (136/224) of those offered treatment attended at least one session. Depression outcomes were similar to trial benchmarks (61%; 78/127 patients had a treatment response). After two years the program obtained long-term funding. Facilitators of implementation were strong trial evidence, effective integration into cancer care and ongoing clinical and managerial support. CONCLUSION: A CC program for major depression, designed for the cancer setting, can be successfully implemented into routine care, but requires time, persistence and involvement of CC experts. Once operating it can be an effective and valued component of medical care.