'Virtually daily grief'-understanding distress in health practitioners involved in a regulatory complaints process: a qualitative study in Australia.

Protection of the public is the paramount aim for health practitioner regulation, yet there has been growing concern globally on the association between regulatory complaints processes and practitioner mental health and wellbeing. The objective was to understand the experience, particularly distress, of health practitioners involved in a regulatory complaints process to identify potential strategies to minimise future risk of distress. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with health practitioners in Australia who had recently been through a regulatory complaints process, together with a retrospective analysis of documentation relating to all identified cases of self-harm or suicide of health practitioners who were involved in such a process over 4 years. Data from interviews and the serious incident analysis found there were elements of the regulatory complaints process contributing to practitioner distress. These included poor communication, extended time to close the investigation, and the management of health-related concerns. The study found external personal circumstances and pre-existing conditions could put the practitioner at greater risk of distress. There were found to be key moments in the process-triggers-where the practitioner was at particular risk of severe distress. Strong support networks, both personal and professional, were found to be protective against distress. Through process improvements and, where appropriate, additional support for practitioners, we hope to further minimise the risk of practitioner distress and harm when involved in a regulatory complaints process. The findings also point to the need for improved partnerships between regulators and key stakeholders, such as legal defence organisations, indemnity providers, employers, and those with lived experience of complaints processes. Together they can improve the support for practitioners facing a complaint and address the stigma, shame, and fear associated with regulatory complaints processes. This project provides further evidence that a more compassionate approach to regulation has the potential to be better for all parties and, ultimately, the wider healthcare system.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles. MAIN RESULTS: We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is important in child and adolescent healthcare because there is growing international recognition of children and young people's rights to be included in decisions that affect them. In order for young people to participate effectively in shared decision-making they need to develop the skills of engagement with healthcare professionals and confidence in interacting with them. They also need to learn how to manage their condition and treatments on their own when they move into adulthood. Children and young people who participate in shared decision-making in healthcare are likely to be more informed, feel more prepared, and experience less anxiety about the unknown. Significant improvements in cystic fibrosis (CF) survival over recent decades, due to improved therapies and better management of care, means that young people with CF are routinely transitioning to adult healthcare where increasing emphasis on self-management brings greater complexity in decision-making. We need to know what interventions are effective in promoting shared decision-making for young people with CF. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions that promote participation in shared decision-making for children and adolescents (aged between four and 18 years) with CF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearches of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of articles and reviews addressing shared decision-making.Date of most recent search: 12 March 2019.We searched PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), WHO ICTRP, ASSIA (ProQuest), ERIC (ProQuest), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted study authors with published relevant research in shared decision-making for adults to ask if they were aware of any published or ongoing studies on the promotion of the intervention for children or adolescents (or both) with CF.Date of most recent search: 19 March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (but not cross-over RCTs) of interventions promoting shared decision-making for children and adolescents with CF aged between four and 18 years, such as information provision, booklets, two-way interaction, checking understanding (by the participant), preparation to participate in a healthcare decision, decision-aids, and training interventions or educational programs. We planned to include interventions aimed at children or adolescents (or both), parents or healthcare professionals or any combination of these groups provided that the focus was aimed at promoting shared decision-making for children and adolescents with CF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed papers identified in the searches. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible RCTs were identified for inclusion in this systematic review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify RCTs with evidence which would support healthcare policy-making and practice related to implementation of shared decision-making for children and adolescents (aged between four and 18 years) with CF). We hope that having identified this gap in research, awareness will increase amongst researchers of the need to design high-quality shared decision-making interventions for young people with CF, perhaps adapted from existing models for adults, and to test these interventions and children's preferences in RCTs. It is also important to target health professionals with evidence-based education programmes on shared decision-making and a need for international consensus on addressing the variability in education programmes.