Guiding organisational decision-making about COVID-19 asymptomatic testing in workplaces: mixed-method study to inform an ethical framework.

BACKGROUND: Workplace programmes to test staff for asymptomatic COVID-19 infection have become common, but raise a number of ethical challenges. In this article, we report the findings of a consultation that informed the development of an ethical framework for organisational decision-making about such programmes. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method consultation - a survey and semi-structured interviews during November-December 2020 in a UK case study organisation that had introduced asymptomatic testing for all staff working on-site in its buildings. Analysis of closed-ended survey data was conducted descriptively. An analysis approach based on the Framework Method was used for the open-ended survey responses and interview data. The analyses were then integrated to facilitate systematic analysis across themes. Inferences were based on the integrated findings and combined with other inputs (literature review, ethical analysis, legal and public health guidance, expert discussions) to develop an ethical framework. RESULTS: The consultation involved 61 staff members from the case study organisation (50 survey respondents and 11 interview participants). There was strong support for the asymptomatic testing programme: 90% of the survey respondents viewed it as helpful or very helpful. Open-ended survey responses and interviews gave insight into participants' concerns, including those relating to goal drift, risk of false negatives, and potential negative impacts for household members and people whose roles lacked contractual and financial stability. Integration of the consultation findings and the other inputs identified the importance of a whole-system approach with appropriate support for the key control measure of isolation following positive tests. The need to build trust in the testing programme, for example through effective communication from leaders, was also emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: The consultation, together with other inputs, informed an ethical framework intended to support employers. The framework may support organisational decision-making in areas ranging from design and operation of the programme through to choices about participation. The framework is likely to benefit from further consultation and refinement in new settings.

Am I safe? An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Vulnerability as Experienced by Patients With Complications Following Surgery.

Abdominal surgery carries with it risks of complications. Little is known about patients' experiences of post-surgical deterioration. There is a real need to understand the psychosocial as well as the biological aspects of deterioration in order to improve care and outcomes for patients. Drawing on in-depth interviews with seven abdominal surgery survivors, we present an idiographic account of participants' experiences, situating their contribution to safety within their personal lived experiences and meaning-making of these episodes of deterioration. Our analysis reveals an overarching group experiential theme of vulnerability in relation to participants' experiences of complications after abdominal surgery. This encapsulates the uncertainty of the situation all the participants found themselves in, and the nature and seriousness of their health conditions. The extent of participants' vulnerability is revealed by detailing how they made sense of their experience, how they negotiated feelings of (un)safety drawing on their relationships with family and staff and the legacy of feelings they were left with when their expectations of care (care as imagined) did not meet the reality of their experiences (care as received). The participants' experiences highlight the power imbalance between patients and professionals in terms of whose knowledge counts within the hospital context. The study reveals the potential for epistemic injustice to arise when patients' concerns are ignored or dismissed. Our data has implications for designing strategies to enable escalation of care, both in terms of supporting staff to deliver compassionate care, and in strengthening patient and family involvement in rescue processes.

A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

A qualitative study of organisational response to national quality standards for 7-day services in English hospitals.

BACKGROUND: National standards are commonly used as an improvement strategy in healthcare, but organisations may respond in diverse and sometimes negative ways to external quality demands. This paper describes how a sample of NHS hospital trusts in England responded to the introduction of national standards for 7-day services (7DS), from an organisational behaviour perspective. METHODS: We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with executive/director level and clinical staff, in eight NHS trusts that varied in size, location, and levels of specialist staffing at weekends. We explored approaches to implementing standards locally, and the impact of organisational culture and local context on organisational response. RESULTS: Senior staff in the majority of trusts described a focus on hitting targets and achieving compliance with the standards. Compliance-based responses were associated with a hierarchical organisational culture and focus on external performance. In a minority of trusts senior staff described mobilising commitment-based strategies. In these trusts senior staff reframed the external standards in terms of organisational values, and used co-operative strategies for achieving change. Trusts that took a commitment-based approach tended to be described as having a developmental organisational culture and a history of higher performance across the board. Audit data on 7DS showed improvement against standards for most trusts, but commitment-focused trusts were less likely to demonstrate improvements on the 7DS audit. The ability of trusts to respond to external standards was limited when they were under pressure due to a history of overall poor performance or resource limitations. CONCLUSIONS: National standards and audit for service-level improvement generate different types of response in different local settings. Approaches to driving improvement nationally need to be accompanied by resources and tailored support for improvement, taking into account local context and organisational culture.

What drives change in neonatal intensive care units? A qualitative study with physicians and nurses in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Innovation is important to improve patient care, but few studies have explored the factors that initiate change in healthcare organizations. METHODS: As part of the European project EPICE on evidence-based perinatal care, we carried out semi-structured interviews (N = 44) with medical and nursing staff from 11 randomly selected neonatal intensive care units in 6 countries. The interviews focused on the most recent clinical or organizational change in the unit relevant to the care of very preterm infants. Thematic analysis was performed using verbatim transcripts of recorded interviews. RESULTS: Reported changes concerned ventilation, feeding and nutrition, neonatal sepsis, infant care, pain management and care of parents. Six categories of drivers to change were identified: availability of new knowledge or technology; guidelines or regulations from outside the unit; need to standardize practices; participation in research; occurrence of adverse events; and wish to improve care. Innovations originating within the unit, linked to the availability of new technology and seen to provide clear benefit for patients were more likely to achieve consensus and rapid implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation can be initiated by several drivers that can impact on the success and sustainability of change.

Reflection in practice: How can patient experience feedback trigger staff reflection in hospital acute care settings?

BACKGROUND: Patient and staff experiences provide important insights into care quality, but health systems have difficulty using these data to improve care. Little attention has been paid to understanding how patient experience feedback can act as a prompt to reflection in practice in the clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the ways in which different types of patient experience feedback act as a trigger or prompt for engagement in reflection in clinical practice in acute hospital settings and identify important considerations for enhancing the value of patient experience data for reflective learning. METHODS: We conducted an ethnographic study in eight acute care units in three NHS hospital trusts in England, including 140 hours of observations and 45 semi-structured interviews with nursing, medical and managerial staff working in acute medical units and intensive care units. The data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: We distinguished between formal patient experience data sources: data purposively collected and collated to capture the patient experience of care, generally at organizational level, including surveys, complaints and comments; and informal sources of feedback on the patient experience recognized by staff alongside the formal data. We also identified patient narratives as an 'in between' source of data. The impact of different types of patient feedback in triggering reflection primarily depended on the extent to which the feedback was experienced as personally relevant, meaningful and emotionally salient. DISCUSSION: Patient experience feedback is multi-faceted, but our study suggests that all types of feedback could be harnessed more effectively to prompt reflection.

Quality and safety of in-hospital care for acute medical patients at weekends: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The increased mortality risk associated with weekend admission to hospital (the 'weekend effect') has been reported across many health systems. More recently research has focused on causal mechanisms. Variations in the organisation and delivery of in-hospital care between weekends and weekdays have been identified, but this is not always to the detriment of weekend admissions, and the impact on mortality is uncertain. The insights of frontline staff and patients have been neglected. This article reports a qualitative study of patients and clinicians, to explore their views on quality and safety of care at weekends. METHODS: We conducted focus groups and interviews with clinicians and patients with experience of acute medical care, recruited from three UK hospital Trusts. We analysed the data using a thematic analysis approach, aided by the use of NVivo, to explore quality and safety of care at weekends. RESULTS: We held four focus groups and completed six in-depth interviews, with 19 clinicians and 12 patients. Four threats to quality and safety were identified as being more prominent at weekends, relating to i) the rescue and stabilisation of sick patients; ii) monitoring and responding to deterioration; iii) timely accurate management of the therapeutic pathway; iv) errors of omission and commission. CONCLUSIONS: At weekends patients and staff are well aware of suboptimal staffing numbers, skill mix and access to resources at weekends, and identify that emergency admissions are prioritised over those already hospitalised. The consequences in terms of quality and safety and patient experience of care are undesirable. Our findings suggest the value of focusing on care processes and systems resilience over the weekends, and how these can be better supported, even in the limited resource environment that exists in many hospitals at weekends.

A qualitative study of participants' views on re-consent in a longitudinal biobank.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research increasingly relies on long-term studies involving use and re-use of biological samples and data stored in large repositories or "biobanks" over lengthy periods, often raising questions about whether and when a re-consenting process should be activated. We sought to investigate the views on re-consent of participants in a longitudinal biobank. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 24 people who were participating in a longitudinal biobank. Their views were elicited using a semi-structured interview schedule and scenarios based on a hypothetical biobank. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: What participants identified as requiring new consent was not a straightforward matter predictable by algorithms about the scope of the consent, but instead was contingent. They assessed whether proposed new research implied a fundamental alteration in the underlying character of the biobank and whether specific projects were within the scope of the original consent. What mattered most to them was that the cooperative bargain into which they had entered was maintained in good faith. They saw re-consent as one important safeguard in this bargain. In determining what required re-consent, they deployed two logics. First, they used a logic of boundaries, where they sought to detect any possible rupture with their existing framework of cooperation. Second, they used a logic of risk, where they assessed proposed research for any potential threats for them personally or the research endeavour. When they judged that a need for re-consent had been activated, participants saw the process as way of re-actualising and renewing the cooperative bargain. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perceptions of research as a process of mutual co-operation between volunteer and researcher were fundamental to their views on consent. Consenting arrangements for biobanks should respect the cooperative values that are important to participants, recognise the two logics used by research volunteers, and avoid rigidity. Agility may be favoured by tiered consent combined with strong oversight mechanisms; this approach requires evaluation.

Women's expectations of prolapse surgery: a retrospective qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore the expectations of prolapse surgery held by women before that surgery and to examine reasons why such expectations were met, or not met. METHODS: Qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with women who had undergone prolapse surgery in a large UK teaching hospital. Interviews were conducted by a third party, trained interviewer using a piloted interview guide, but women were encouraged to speak freely. Transcripts were analyzed based on the constant comparative method and interviews continued until no new themes emerged. RESULTS: Fifty-two women were contacted; 32 took part. Twenty-eight women's interviews were used for analysis, after pilot interviews with four women. Median age was 58 (32-86), 19 were Caucasian, nine of South Indian ethnicity. Anticipated benefits of surgery included global themes of cure without specific definitions, focusing on physical symptoms. A few women anticipated psychological benefit. Most women had expectations of a permanent cure. After surgery, most women considered their surgery a success, for physical symptom improvement. Some women had modified their prior expectations (downwards) and success was interpreted in this light. Provision of information about recovery and symptom resolution was felt to be inadequate by the majority. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, resolution of physical symptoms was the prevalent expectation, along with restoration of "normality." Normality was often redefined during recovery, indicating the complexity of assessing fulfillment of expectations, and that specific goal-setting may be inadequate. A chronic illness framework for prolapse may be helpful. Information exchange, especially in the post-operative period can be improved.

Walkrounds in practice: corrupting or enhancing a quality improvement intervention? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Walkrounds, introduced as Leadership (or Executive) WalkRounds, are a widely advocated model for increasing leadership engagement in patient safety to improve safety culture, but evidence for their effectiveness is mixed. In the English National Health Service (NHS), hospitals have been strongly encouraged to make use of methods closely based on the walkrounds approach. A study was conducted to explore how walkrounds are used in practice and to identify variations in implementation that might mediate their impact on safety and culture. METHODS: The data, collected from 82 semistructured interviews in the English NHS, were drawn from two components of a wider study of culture and behavior around quality and safety in the English system. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. FINDINGS: Our analysis highlights how local, pragmatic adjustments to the walkrounds approach could radically alter its character and the way in which it is received by those at the front line. The modification and expansion of walkrounds to increase the scope of knowledge produced could increase the value that executives draw from them. However, it risks replacing the main objectives of walkrounds--specific, actionable knowledge about safety issues, and a more positive safety culture and relationship between ward and board--with a form of surveillance that could alienate frontline staff and produce fallible insights. CONCLUSION: The studys findings suggest some plausible explanations for the mixed evidence for walkrounds' effectiveness in creating a safety culture. On a practical level, they point to critical questions that executives must ask themselves in practicing interventions of this nature to ensure that adaptations align rather than conflict with the intervention's model of change.

Running a hospital patient safety campaign: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Research on patient safety campaigns has mostly concentrated on large-scale multi-organisation efforts, yet locally led improvement is increasingly promoted. The purpose of this paper is to characterise the design and implementation of an internal patient safety campaign at a large acute National Health Service hospital trust with a view to understanding how to optimise such campaigns. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors conducted a qualitative study of a campaign that sought to achieve 12 patient safety goals. The authors interviewed 19 managers and 45 frontline staff, supplemented by 56 hours of non-participant observation. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. FINDINGS: The campaign was motivated by senior managers' commitment to patient safety improvement, a series of serious untoward incidents, and a history of campaign-style initiatives at the trust. While the campaign succeeded in generating enthusiasm and focus among managers and some frontline staff, it encountered three challenges. First, though many staff at the sharp end were aware of the campaign, their knowledge, and acceptance of its content, rationale, and relevance for distinct clinical areas were variable. Second, the mechanisms of change, albeit effective in creating focus, may have been too limited. Third, many saw the tempo of the campaign as too rapid. Overall, the campaign enjoyed some success in raising the profile of patient safety. However, its ability to promote change was mixed, and progress was difficult to evidence because of lack of reliable measurement. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The study shows that single-organisation campaigns may help in raising the profile of patient safety. The authors offer important lessons for the successful running of such campaigns.

What can Safety Cases offer for patient safety? A multisite case study.

BACKGROUND: The Safety Case is a regulatory technique that requires organisations to demonstrate to regulators that they have systematically identified hazards in their systems and reduced risks to being as low as reasonably practicable. It is used in several high-risk sectors, but only in a very limited way in healthcare. We examined the first documented attempt to apply the Safety Case methodology to clinical pathways. METHODS: Data are drawn from a mixed-methods evaluation of the Safer Clinical Systems programme. The development of a Safety Case for a defined clinical pathway was a centrepiece of the programme. We base our analysis on 143 interviews covering all aspects of the programme and on analysis of 13 Safety Cases produced by clinical teams. RESULTS: The principles behind a proactive, systematic approach to identifying and controlling risk that could be curated in a single document were broadly welcomed by participants, but was not straightforward to deliver. Compiling Safety Cases helped teams to identify safety hazards in clinical pathways, some of which had been previously occluded. However, the work of compiling Safety Cases was demanding of scarce skill and resource. Not all problems identified through proactive methods were tractable to the efforts of front-line staff. Some persistent hazards, originating from institutional and organisational vulnerabilities, appeared also to be out of the scope of control of even the board level of organisations. A particular dilemma for organisational senior leadership was whether to prioritise fixing the risks proactively identified in Safety Cases over other pressing issues, including those that had already resulted in harm. CONCLUSIONS: The Safety Case approach was recognised by those involved in the Safer Clinical Systems programme as having potential value. However, it is also fraught with challenge, highlighting the limitations of efforts to transfer safety management practices to healthcare from other sectors.

Why is safety in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring so hard? A qualitative study combining human factors/ergonomics and social science analysis.

BACKGROUND: Problems in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) remain a major area of preventable harm. Poor understanding of the range of influences on safety may have hindered improvement. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we sought to characterise the everyday practice of CTG monitoring and the work systems within which it takes place, with the goal of identifying potential sources of risk. METHODS: Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) experts and social scientists conducted 325 hours of observations and 23 interviews in three maternity units in the UK, focusing on how CTG tasks were undertaken, the influences on this work and the cultural and organisational features of work settings. HF/E analysis was based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. Social science analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: CTG monitoring can be understood as a complex sociotechnical activity, with tasks, people, tools and technology, and organisational and external factors all combining to affect safety. Fetal heart rate patterns need to be recorded and interpreted correctly. Systems are also required for seeking the opinions of others, determining whether the situation warrants concern, escalating concerns and mobilising response. These processes may be inadequately designed or function suboptimally, and may be further complicated by staffing issues, equipment and ergonomics issues, and competing and frequently changing clinical guidelines. Practice may also be affected by variable standards and workflows, variations in clinical competence, teamwork and situation awareness, and the ability to communicate concerns freely. CONCLUSIONS: CTG monitoring is an inherently collective and sociotechnical practice. Improving it will require accounting for complex system interdependencies, rather than focusing solely on discrete factors such as individual technical proficiency in interpreting traces.

How to co-design a prototype of a clinical practice tool: a framework with practical guidance and a case study.

Clinical tools for use in practice-such as medicine reconciliation charts, diagnosis support tools and track-and-trigger charts-are endemic in healthcare, but relatively little attention is given to how to optimise their design. User-centred design approaches and co-design principles offer potential for improving usability and acceptability of clinical tools, but limited practical guidance is currently available. We propose a framework (FRamework for co-dESign of Clinical practice tOols or 'FRESCO') offering practical guidance based on user-centred methods and co-design principles, organised in five steps: (1) establish a multidisciplinary advisory group; (2) develop initial drafts of the prototype; (3) conduct think-aloud usability evaluations; (4) test in clinical simulations; (5) generate a final prototype informed by workshops. We applied the framework in a case study to support co-design of a prototype track-and-trigger chart for detecting and responding to possible fetal deterioration during labour. This started with establishing an advisory group of 22 members with varied expertise. Two initial draft prototypes were developed-one based on a version produced by national bodies, and the other with similar content but designed using human factors principles. Think-aloud usability evaluations of these prototypes were conducted with 15 professionals, and the findings used to inform co-design of an improved draft prototype. This was tested with 52 maternity professionals from five maternity units through clinical simulations. Analysis of these simulations and six workshops were used to co-design the final prototype to the point of readiness for large-scale testing. By codifying existing methods and principles into a single framework, FRESCO supported mobilisation of the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to co-design a prototype track-and-trigger chart in an area of pressing service need. Subject to further evaluation, the framework has potential for application beyond the area of clinical practice in which it was applied.

A qualitative study of the dynamics of access to remote antenatal care through the lens of candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of pregnant women, antenatal healthcare professionals, and system leaders to understand the impact of the implementation of remote provision of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 93 participants, including 45 individuals who had been pregnant during the study period, 34 health care professionals, and 14 managers and system-level stakeholders. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method and used the theoretical framework of candidacy. RESULTS: We found that remote antenatal care had far-reaching effects on access when understood through the lens of candidacy. It altered women's own identification of themselves and their babies as eligible for antenatal care. Navigating services became more challenging, often requiring considerable digital literacy and sociocultural capital. Services became less permeable, meaning that they were more difficult to use and demanding of the personal and social resources of users. Remote consultations were seen as more transactional in character and were limited by lack of face-to-face contact and safe spaces, making it more difficult for women to make their needs - both clinical and social - known, and for professionals to assess them. Operational and institutional challenges, including problems in sharing of antenatal records, were consequential. There were suggestions that a shift to remote provision of antenatal care might increase risks of inequities in access to care in relation to every feature of candidacy we characterised. CONCLUSION: It is important to recognise the implications for access to antenatal care of a shift to remote delivery. It is not a simple swap: it restructures many aspects of candidacy for care in ways that pose risks of amplifying existing intersectional inequalities that lead to poorer outcomes. Addressing these challenges through policy and practice action is needed to tackle these risks.

Training for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean birth: multimethod evaluation of a pilot.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of national multiprofessional training for managing the obstetric emergency of impacted fetal head (IFH) at caesarean birth has potential to improve quality and safety in maternity care, but is currently lacking in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a training package for managing IFH at caesarean birth with multiprofessional maternity teams. METHODS: The training included an evidence-based lecture supported by an animated video showing management of IFH, followed by hands-on workshops and real-time simulations with use of a birth simulation trainer, augmented reality and management algorithms. Guided by the Kirkpatrick framework, we conducted a multimethod evaluation of the training with multiprofessional maternity teams. Participants rated post-training statements about relevance and helpfulness of the training and pre-training and post-training confidence in their knowledge and skills relating to IFH (7-point Likert scales, strongly disagree to strongly agree). An ethnographer recorded sociotechnical observations during the training. Participants provided feedback in post-training focus groups. RESULTS: Participants (N=57) included 21 midwives, 25 obstetricians, 7 anaesthetists and 4 other professionals from five maternity units. Over 95% of participants agreed that the training was relevant and helpful for their clinical practice and improving outcomes following IFH. Confidence in technical and non-technical skills relating to managing IFH was variable before the training (5%-92% agreement with the pre-training statements), but improved in nearly all participants after the training (71%-100% agreement with the post-training statements). Participants and ethnographers reported that the training helped to: (i) better understand the complexity of IFH, (ii) recognise the need for multiprofessional training and management and (iii) optimise communication with those in labour and their birth partners. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated training package can improve self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence of multiprofessional teams involved in management of IFH at caesarean birth. A larger-scale evaluation is required to validate these findings and establish how best to scale and implement the training.

Qualitative study of candidacy and access to secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.

Identifying how GPs spend their time and the obstacles they face: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Although problems that impair task completion - known as operational failures - are an important focus of concern in primary care, they have remained little studied. AIM: To quantify the time GPs spend on different activities during clinical sessions; to identify the number of operational failures they encounter; and to characterise the nature of operational failures and their impact for GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-method triangulation study with 61 GPs in 28 NHS general practices in England from December 2018 to December 2019. METHOD: Time-motion methods, ethnographic observations, and interviews were used. RESULTS: Time-motion data on 7679 GP tasks during 238 hours of practice in 61 clinical sessions suggested that operational failures were responsible for around 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5% to 5.4%) of all tasks undertaken by GPs and accounted for 3.9% (95% CI = 3.2% to 4.5%) of clinical time. However, qualitative data showed that time-motion methods, which depend on pre-programmed categories, substantially underestimated operational failures. Qualitative data also enabled further characterisation of operational failures, extending beyond those measured directly in the time-motion data (for example, interruptions, deficits in equipment/supplies, and technology) to include problems linked to GPs' coordination role and weaknesses in work systems and processes. The impacts of operational failures were highly consequential for GPs' experiences of work. CONCLUSION: GPs experience frequent operational failures, disrupting patient care, impairing experiences of work, and imposing burden in an already pressurised system. This better understanding of the nature and impact of operational failures allows for identification of targets for improvement and indicates the need for coordinated action to support GPs.

Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it. METHODS: This UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers. FINDINGS: Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.

What counts as a voiceable concern in decisions about speaking out in hospitals: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Those who work in health care organisations are a potentially valuable source of information about safety concerns, yet failures of voice are persistent. We propose the concept of 'voiceable concern' and offer an empirical exploration. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving 165 semi-structured interviews with a range of staff (clinical, non-clinical and at different hierarchical levels) in three hospitals in two countries. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Our analysis shows that identifying what counts as a concern, and what counts as a occasion for voice by a given individual, is not a straightforward matter of applying objective criteria. It instead often involves discretionary judgement, exercised in highly specific organisational and cultural contexts. We identified four influences that shape whether incidents, events and patterns were classified as voiceable concerns: certainty that something is wrong and is an occasion for voice; system versus conduct concerns, forgivability and normalisation. Determining what counted as a voiceable concern is not a simple function of the features of the concern; also important is whether the person who noticed the concern felt it was voiceable by them. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how those who work in health care organisations come to recognise what counts as a voiceable concern is critical to understanding decisions and actions about speaking out. The concept of a voiceable concern may help to explain aspects of voice behaviour in organisations as well as informing interventions to improve voice.