Dementia care coordinators in primary care: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: A dementia care coordinator (DCC) service has recently been implemented across Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (ICB). DCCs are provided at the primary care network (PCN) level and work closely with GP practice teams. The service is intended to help service users navigate the care system and provide proactive support to mitigate crisis points. However, the value of this service from key stakeholder perspectives is not yet known. AIM: To understand: 1) how the DCC service works, for whom, and in what circumstances; and 2) identify outcomes, resource implications, and costs. METHOD: The study uses mixed-methods realist evaluation with an embedded economic component. Data collection includes: questionnaires, service provider metrics, and qualitative interviews with healthcare practitioners and service users. Interpretive comparative analysis and narrative synthesis including evaluation of service costs against outcomes will produce a refined final programme theory. Patient and public involvement have been consulted throughout. RESULTS: Preliminary results indicate that when embedded in a local practice, healthcare practitioners including GPs welcome DCC involvement. DCCs act as community lynchpins, bridging service users to appropriate care pathways. The service may be capable of increasing diagnosis rates and reducing crisis points. However, caseloads are currently untamed. Therefore, the service and its workforce are becoming over-stretched. CONCLUSION: This evaluation describes preliminary findings from a recently implemented DCC service in Kent and Medway ICB. There is a crucial need to enhance the support of this workforce in order to ensure sustainability of this service. These findings will inform service development and future investment decisions.

Improving Environmental Sustainability of Operating Theatres: A Systematic Review of Staff Attitudes, Barriers, and Enablers.

OBJECTIVE: To understand views of staff in relation to attitudes, enablers, and barriers to implementation of environmentally sustainable surgery in operating theatres. This will ultimately help in the goal of successfully implementing more sustainable theatres. SUMMARY BACKGROUND: Global healthcare sectors are responsible for 4.4% of greenhouse gas emissions. Surgical operating theatres are resource intensive areas and improvements will be important to meet Net-Zero carbon emissions within healthcare. METHODS: Three databases were searched (Web of Science, Ovid and PubMed), last check January 2024. We included original manuscripts evaluating staff views regarding sustainable operating theatres. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality appraisal and data analysed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: 2933 articles were screened and 14 fulfilled inclusion criteria, using qualitative (1), quantitative (2), and mixed methods (11). Studies were undertaken in a variety of clinical (Department of Anaesthesia, Surgery, Otolaryngology, Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Ophthalmology) and geographical settings (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, USA, UK & Ireland,). Across studies there was a lack of evidence exploring enablers to implementation, but barriers mainly related to the following themes: education and awareness, leadership, resistance to change, facilities and equipment, time, and incentive. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified attitudes and barriers perceived by clinicians towards improving environmental sustainability within operating theatres, which may inform future strategy towards sustainable surgery. Most studies used a survey-design, whereas use of interviews may provide deeper insights. Future work should be extended to wider stakeholders influencing operating theatres. Additionally, implementation studies should be carried out to examine whether barriers do change in practice. This systematic review identified attitudes and barriers perceived by clinicians towards improving environmental sustainability within operating theatres, which may inform future strategy towards sustainable surgery. Most studies used a survey-design, whereas use of interviews may provide deeper insights. Future work should be extended to wider stakeholders influencing operating theatres. Additionally, implementation studies should be carried out to examine whether barriers do change in practice.

'There was a pivotal moment'. The dynamics, transitions, adaptations and trajectories of nursing at the front-line in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Using qualitative interview data (n = 142 interviews) generated with 50 nurses, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper traces the trajectories of nurses in the UK and attempts to unpick the interplay between structure and agency in their narratives. Interviews were inductively analysed for themes and an additional narrative analysis was undertaken to preserve the form of each participant's narrative. We argue that nurses' pandemic trajectories occurred within the 'psychological vulnerability-stigma nexus' which operates within health and social care providers in the UK and whilst constraining nurses' agency at times it could also provide an impetus to act agentically. We found that the nurses' COVID-19 trajectories were characterised by: getting by, getting out (job-hopping) getting needs met and getting organised. We call for more considered systemic support to be generated and consistently provided to nurses to ensure retention of nurses and the security of society to avoid exacerbating existing workforce shortages.

The effect of general practice team composition and climate on staff and patient experiences: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent policy initiatives seeking to address the workforce crisis in general practice have promoted greater multidisciplinarity. Evidence is lacking on how changes in staffing and the relational climate in practice teams affect the experiences of staff and patients. AIM: To synthesise evidence on how the composition of the practice workforce and team climate affect staff job satisfaction and burnout, and the processes and quality of care for patients. DESIGN & SETTING: A systematic literature review of international evidence. METHOD: Four different searches were carried out using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Evidence from English language articles from 2012-2022 was identified, with no restriction on study design. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and data were synthesised thematically. RESULTS: In total, 11 studies in primary healthcare settings were included, 10 from US integrated healthcare systems, one from Canada. Findings indicated that when teams are understaffed and work environments are stressful, patient care and staff wellbeing suffer. However, a good relational climate can buffer against burnout and protect patient care quality in situations of high workload. Good team dynamics and stable team membership are important for patient care coordination and job satisfaction. Female physicians are at greater risk of burnout. CONCLUSION: Evidence regarding team composition and team climate in relation to staff and patient outcomes in general practice remains limited. Challenges exist when drawing conclusions across different team compositions and definitions of team climate. Further research is needed to explore the conditions that generate a 'good' climate.

UK general practice service delivery research priorities: an adapted James Lind Alliance approach.

BACKGROUND: General practice is in a state of crisis in a number of countries. In the UK, a range of measures have been introduced to address the situation, including innovations such as practice networks, multidisciplinary roles, and digital technologies. However, identifying what still needs fixing could benefit from more evidence, particularly in relation to day-to-day service delivery. AIM: To identify the general practice workforce's top 10 research priorities to improve service delivery. DESIGN AND SETTING: This priority-setting study used an adapted James Lind Alliance methodology and involved staff working in general practice across the UK. METHOD: The study comprised four phases: an online qualitative survey issued to the general practice workforce (clinical and non-clinical groups); thematic analysis of free-text responses; generation of indicative research questions; and the undertaking of ranking exercises with responders of the original survey. An online workshop was held with participants at the final stage of prioritisation. RESULTS: In total, 93 staff completed a survey in Phase 1, from which 20 themes were categorised and developed into research questions. Twenty- two staff responded to the first ranking activity and 11 took part in a second ranking activity to discuss themes that had a tied vote. The final top 10 research priorities were: volume of work; patient behaviour; consultations; employment pay and conditions; workload dumping and care of patients on waiting list; funding; overwhelming pressure; patient health education; complex patient needs; and interfaces with secondary care. However, there was no clear ranking of these 10 priorities; instead, they carried equal weight and were closely interconnected. CONCLUSION: Applying a marginal-gains approach, by seeking to explore all 10 priorities simultaneously as opposed to concentrating on one area at a time, may provide more noticeable improvements overall. Systems-based approaches that take account of the marked role that context has may be a particularly useful lens for future research.

Drivers of unprofessional behaviour between staff in acute care hospitals: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviours (UB) between healthcare staff are rife in global healthcare systems, negatively impacting staff wellbeing, patient safety and care quality. Drivers of UBs include organisational, situational, team, and leadership issues which interact in complex ways. An improved understanding of these factors and their interactions would enable future interventions to better target these drivers of UB. METHODS: A realist review following RAMESES guidelines was undertaken with stakeholder input. Initial theories were formulated drawing on reports known to the study team and scoping searches. A systematic search of databases including Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE and HMIC was performed to identify literature for theory refinement. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. RESULTS: We included 81 reports (papers) from 2,977 deduplicated records of grey and academic reports, and 28 via Google, stakeholders, and team members, yielding a total of 109 reports. Five categories of contributor were formulated: (1) workplace disempowerment; (2) harmful workplace processes and cultures; (3) inhibited social cohesion; (4) reduced ability to speak up; and (5) lack of manager awareness and urgency. These resulted in direct increases to UB, reduced ability of staff to cope, and reduced ability to report, challenge or address UB. Twenty-three theories were developed to explain how these contributors work and interact, and how their outcomes differ across diverse staff groups. Staff most at risk of UB include women, new staff, staff with disabilities, and staff from minoritised groups. UB negatively impacted patient safety by impairing concentration, communication, ability to learn, confidence, and interpersonal trust. CONCLUSION: Existing research has focused primarily on individual characteristics, but these are inconsistent, difficult to address, and can be used to deflect organisational responsibility. We present a comprehensive programme theory furthering understanding of contributors to UB, how they work and why, how they interact, whom they affect, and how patient safety is impacted. More research is needed to understand how and why minoritised staff are disproportionately affected by UB. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .

Interventions to address unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute care: what works for whom and why? A realist review.

BACKGROUND: Unprofessional behaviour (UB) between staff encompasses various behaviours, including incivility, microaggressions, harassment, and bullying. UB is pervasive in acute healthcare settings and disproportionately impacts minoritised staff. UB has detrimental effects on staff wellbeing, patient safety and organisational resources. While interventions have been implemented to mitigate UB, there is limited understanding of how and why they may work and for whom. METHODS: This study utilised a realist review methodology with stakeholder input to improve understanding of these complex context-dependent interventions. Initial programme theories were formulated drawing upon scoping searches and reports known to the study team. Purposive systematic searches were conducted to gather grey and published global literature from databases. Documents were selected if relevant to UB in acute care settings while considering rigour and relevance. Data were extracted from these reports, synthesised, and initial theories tested, to produce refined programme theories. RESULTS: Of 2977 deduplicated records, 148 full text reports were included with 42 reports describing interventions to address UB in acute healthcare settings. Interventions drew on 13 types of behaviour change strategies and were categorised into five types of intervention (1) single session (i.e. one off); (2) multiple session; (3) single or multiple sessions combined with other actions (e.g. training sessions plus a code of conduct); (4) professional accountability and reporting programmes and; (5) structured culture change interventions. We formulated 55 context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how, why, and when these interventions work. We identified twelve key dynamics to consider in intervention design, including importance of addressing systemic contributors, rebuilding trust in managers, and promoting a psychologically safe culture; fifteen implementation principles were identified to address these dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to address UB are still at an early stage of development, and their effectiveness to reduce UB and improve patient safety is unclear. Future interventions should incorporate knowledge from behavioural and implementation science to affect behaviour change; draw on multiple concurrent strategies to address systemic contributors to UB; and consider the undue burden of UB on minoritised groups. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (PROSPERO): https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255490 .

The impact of COVID-19 on patient engagement with primary healthcare: lessons from the saudi primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: There have been significant achievements in controlling COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia (SA), but as in most healthcare settings worldwide, health services have been seriously disrupted. Also, with pandemic control measures such as lockdowns and curfews, and innovations such as digital health services, the delivery of primary healthcare (PHC) services has dramatically changed. However, little is known about patients' experiences of PHCs during the pandemic, their views on the pandemic-related interventions in SA, and patient views on impact on their medical care. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured online interviews were conducted for twenty-four Saudi patients across SA aged 18 and above who were diverse in terms of age, gender, education and health status. Data were analysed using thematic analysis yielding four major themes as an impact of COVID-19 on patient engagement with PHCs. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound mixed impacts on patient engagement with PHC in SA. Fear of infection or of breaking lockdown rules has negatively impacted the utilisation of PHCs but positively changed patients' attitudes towards seeking medical help for self-limiting conditions. The pandemic has also negatively impacted routine preventive care at PHCs, especially for patients with long-term health conditions. The mandatory use of some digital health services in SA that existed pre-pandemic has provided patients with a perception of better care during the pandemic. Yet, a lack of awareness of optional digital health services, such as virtual clinics, hindered optimal use. Despite pandemic-related disruption of patient engagement with PHCs, the reduced waiting time in PHC centres and healthcare providers' communication and empathy during the pandemic contributed to patients' perceptions of better care compared to pre-pandemic. However, patients living outside the main cities in SA perceived care quality as less good during the pandemic compared to PHCs in the main cities in SA. CONCLUSION: The lessons learned from patients' experiences and views of PHCs during the pandemic were beneficial in promoting patient engagement with PHCs. The digital health services mandated in response to the pandemic have accelerated digital health innovation in SA and allowed patients to recognise the benefits of digital health. This has huge potential for increasing continuous patient engagement with PHCs. Yet, patients' experiences of digital health services during the pandemic are essential for informing appropriate implementation and utilisation of e-health services. Patients' positive experiences of PHCs during the pandemic, such as the reduction in waiting times and the perception of improved healthcare providers' professionalism, communication and empathy, can be built on to sustain engagement with PHC services. These findings might have significance for clinicians and policymakers to support patient engagement with PHCs, particularly in healthcare systems like SA that struggle with the overuse of emergency departments (EDs) for PHC-treatable conditions.

Dementia care coordinator service in Kent and Medway: a realist evaluation protocol.

BACKGROUND: Dementia care is a key priority for both NHS England and the UK government. National guidelines highlight the importance of care coordination to address the challenges people living with dementia and their carers can encounter when trying to access the health and care system. To counter these challenges, Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (ICB) have recently implemented a proactive dementia care coordinator (DCC) service to support people with dementia and their carers from pre-diagnosis to end-of-life care. AIM: To understand how the DCC service works (or does not work), for whom, and in what circumstances. The findings will inform service development and future investment decisions. DESIGN & SETTING: This study will use a realist approach to evaluate the DCC service in Kent and Medway ICB, south-east England, which has a population of 1.9 million, comprising 42 primary care networks (PCNs; groups of general practices) each having a DCC. METHOD: An initial programme theory will be developed from existing literature, and in collaboration with stakeholders. Mixed methods, including questionnaires to DCCs, service provider metrics, and qualitative interviews, will be used to collect data on service provider and service user experiences. Interpretive comparative analysis and narrative synthesis, including evaluation of service costs against outcomes, will produce a refined final programme theory. RESULTS: The results from this project will produce evidence-based recommendations to help improve service delivery and possible service expansion. CONCLUSION: This protocol describes a realist evaluation designed to investigate the recently implemented DCC service in Kent and Medway ICB.

'Pretty cathartic actually': Reflections on the attempt to reduce re-traumatization of researchers and nurses taking part in a longitudinal interview study.

AIM: To critically evaluate the concepts of harm and re-traumatization in the research process and to explore the ethical implications of conducting research on distressing topics using our research on the experiences of nurses working during the COVID-19 pandemic as an exemplar. DESIGN: Longitudinal qualitative interview study. METHODS: Using qualitative narrative interviews, we explored the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses' psychological well-being in the UK. RESULTS: To reduce the potential for harm to both research participants and researchers, the members of the research team were keen to establish ways to reduce the power differential between the researcher and participants. We found that our collaborative and team-based approach, with participant autonomy and researcher reflexivity embedded into the research framework, enabled the sensitive generation of data. CONCLUSION: Reduction of potential harm for both participants and researchers in the generation of at times highly distressing data with a traumatized population was achieved through a respectful, honest and empathetic approach within a team that met frequently for reflection. IMPACT: The research participants were not harmed by our research, instead they expressed gratitude at being given space and time to tell their stories in a supportive environment. Our work advances nursing knowledge through accentuating the value of giving autonomy to research participants to control their stories whilst working within a supportive research team with emphasis placed on reflexivity and debriefing. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Nurses working clinically during COVID-19 were involved in the development of this study. Nurse participants were given autonomy over how and when they participated in the research process.

Speaking up during the COVID-19 pandemic: Nurses' experiences of organizational disregard and silence.

AIM: To critically examine nurses' experiences of speaking up during COVID-19 and the consequences of doing so. DESIGN: Longitudinal qualitative study. METHODS: Participants were purposively sampled to represent differing geographical locations, specialities, settings and redeployment experiences. They were interviewed (remotely) between July 2020 and April 2022 using a semi-structured interview topic guide. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified inductively from our analysis including: (1) Under threat: The ability to speak up or not; (2) Risk tolerance and avoidance: Consequences of speaking up; and (3) Deafness and hostility: Responses to speaking up. Nurses reported that their attempts to speak up typically focused on PPE, patient safety and redeployment. Findings indicate that when NHS Trusts and community services initiated their pandemic response policies, nurses' opportunities to speak up were frequently thwarted. CONCLUSION: Accounts presented in this article include nurses' feeling a sense of futility or of suffering in silence in relation to speaking up. Nurses also fear the consequences of speaking up. Those who did speak up encountered a 'deaf' or hostile response, leaving nurses feeling disregarded by their organization. This points to missed opportunities to learn from those on the front line. IMPACT: Speaking up interventions need to focus on enhancing the skills to both speak up, and respond appropriately, particularly when power, hierarchy, fear and threat might be concerned. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Nurses working clinically during COVID-19 were involved in the development of this study. Participants were also involved in the development of our interview topic guide and comments obtained from the initial survey helped to shape the study design.

Community pharmacy and general practice collaborative and integrated working: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing collaborative and integrated working between General practice (GP) and Community pharmacy (CP) is a key priority of the UK National Health Service and has been proposed as a solution to reducing health system fragmentation, improving synergies and coordination of care. However, there is limited understanding regarding how and under which circumstances collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP can be achieved in practice and how regulatory, organisational and systemic barriers can be overcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of our review is to understand how, when and why working arrangements between GP and CP can provide the conditions necessary for optimal communication, decision-making, and collaborative and integrated working. A realist review approach will be used to synthesise the evidence to make sense of the complexities inherent in the working relationships between GP and CP. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) finding existing theories; (2) searching for evidence (our main searches were conducted in April 2022); (3) article selection; (4) data extraction and (5) synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. We will synthesise evidence from grey literature, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods research. The research team will work closely with key stakeholders and include patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the review process to refine the focus of the review and the programme theory. Collectively, our refined programme theory will explain how collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP works (or not), for whom, how and under which circumstances. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this review as it draws on secondary data from published articles and grey literature. Findings will be widely disseminated through: publication in peer-reviewed journals, seminars, international conference presentations, patients' association channels, social media, symposia and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022314280.

Why do acute healthcare staff engage in unprofessional behaviours towards each other and how can these behaviours be reduced? A realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Unprofessional behaviours encompass many behaviours including bullying, harassment and microaggressions. These behaviours between healthcare staff are problematic; they affect people's ability to work, to feel psychologically safe at work and speak up and to deliver safe care to patients. Almost a fifth of UK National Health Service staff experience unprofessional behaviours in the workplace, with higher incidence in acute care settings and for staff from minority backgrounds. Existing analyses have investigated the effectiveness of strategies to reduce these behaviours. We seek to go beyond these, to understand the range and causes of such behaviours, their negative effects and how mitigation strategies may work, in which contexts and for whom. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses a realist review methodology with stakeholder input comprising a number of iterative steps: (1) formulating initial programme theories drawing on informal literature searches and literature already known to the study team, (2) performing systematic and purposive searches for grey and peer-reviewed literature on Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases as well as Google and Google Scholar, (3) selecting appropriate documents while considering rigour and relevance, (4) extracting data, (5) and synthesising and (6) refining the programme theories by testing the theories against the newly identified literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required as this study is a secondary research. An impact strategy has been developed which includes working closely with key stakeholders throughout the project. Step 7 of our project will develop pragmatic resources for managers and professionals, tailoring contextually-sensitive strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours, identifying what works for which groups. We will be guided by the 'Evidence Integration Triangle' to implement the best strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours in given contexts. Dissemination will occur through presentation at conferences, innovative methods (cartoons, videos, animations and/or interactive performances) and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021255490.

"What Is the Matter With Me?" or a "Badge of Honor": Nurses' Constructions of Resilience During Covid-19.

It has long been known that nursing work is challenging and has the potential for negative impacts. During the COVID-19 pandemic most nurses' working landscapes altered dramatically and many faced unprecedented challenges. Resilience is a contested term that has been used with increasing prevalence in healthcare with health professionals encouraging a "tool-box" of stress management techniques and resilience-building skills. Drawing on narrative interview data (n = 27) from the Impact of Covid on Nurses (ICON) qualitative study we examine how nurses conceptualized resilience during COVID-19 and the impacts this had on their mental wellbeing. We argue here that it is paramount that nurses are not blamed for experiencing workplace stress when perceived not to be resilient "enough," particularly when expressing what may be deemed to be normal and appropriate reactions given the extreme circumstances and context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Causal explanations for patient engagement with primary care services in Saudi Arabia: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Saudi Arabia (SA) has a rapidly developing universal healthcare system which is maturing from its hospital focused origins. However, health service usage suggests that up to 65% of the cases seen in emergency departments were classified as non-urgent and could have been appropriately managed in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. Primary care development in SA has lagged behind secondary care, and evidence suggests that Saudi citizens are currently ambivalent or dissatisfied with their PHC services. Previous research has focused on the quality and patient satisfaction of PHC services in SA. Yet, uncertainty still exists about causal explanations for patient engagement with PHC services and what refinements are needed for PHC. Less attention has been paid to how patient engagement strategies might work differently, which is increasingly recognised as important in PHC services. The aim of this review is to understand the causal explanations for patient engagement with PHC and to generate theory of how the intended outcome of patient engagement with PHC in SA might be achieved through identified contexts and mechanisms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review approach will be used to synthesise the evidence. Databases including Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL will be searched. Literature will be included if it has relevance to the research question, and is trustworthy in nature. All document types will be screened including peer reviewed articles, relevant grey literature and related media items. All study types will be included. Stakeholders' feedback will also inform our review. A realist approach is suitable for this review because patient engagement with PHC services is a complex phenomenon. A range of different relevant data will be included in the following stages: developing an initial programme theory, searching the evidence, selecting data, extracting data, synthesising data and refining the programme theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will use secondary data, and stakeholders are involved only to shape our understanding of the important contexts in patient engagement; hence, a formal ethics review is not required. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020175955.

Living life in limbo: experiences of healthcare professionals during the HCPC fitness to practice investigation process in the UK.

BACKGROUND: It is the responsibility of healthcare regulators to ensure healthcare professionals remain fit for practice in healthcare settings. If there are concerns about an individual healthcare professional they may undergo a fitness to practice investigation. This process is known to be hugely stressful for doctors and social workers, but little is known about the impact of this experience on other professions. This study explores the experiences of registrants going through the process of being reported to the UK's Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and attending fitness to practice (FTP) hearings. We discuss the implications of this process on registrants' wellbeing and, from our findings, present recommendations based on registrants experiences. In doing so we articulate the structural processes of the HCPC FTP process and the impact this has on individuals. METHODS: This study uses semi-structured interviews and framework analysis to explore the experiences of 15 registrants who had completed the FTP process. Participants were sampled for maximum variation and were selected to reflect the range of possible processes and outcomes through the FTP process. RESULTS: The psychological impact of undergoing a FTP process was significant for the majority of participants. Their stories described influences on their wellbeing at both a macro (institutional/organisational) and micro (individual) level. A lack of information, long length of time for the process and poor support avenues were macro factors impacting on the ability of registrants to cope with their experiences (theme 1). These macro factors led to feelings of powerlessness, vulnerability and threat of ruin for many registrants (theme 2). Suggested improvements (theme 3) included better psychological support (e.g. signposting or provision); proportional processes to the incident (e.g. mediation instead of hearings); and taking context into account. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that improvements to both the structure and conduct of the FTP process are warranted. Implementation of better signposting for support both during and after a FTP process may improve psychological wellbeing. There may also be value in considering alternative ways of organising the FTP process to enable greater consideration of and flexibility for registrants' context and how they are investigated.

Lost in reviews: Looking for the involvement of stakeholders, patients, public and other non-researcher contributors in realist reviews.

The involvement of non-researcher contributors (eg, stakeholders, patients and the public, decision and policy makers, experts, lay contributors) has taken a variety of forms within evidence syntheses. Realist reviews are a form of evidence synthesis that involves non-researcher contributors yet this practice has received little attention. In particular, the role of patient and public involvement (PPI) has not been clearly documented. This review of reviews describes the ways in which contributor involvement, including PPI, is documented within healthcare realist reviews published over the last five years. A total of 448 papers published between 2014 and 2019 were screened, yielding 71 full-text papers included in this review. Statements about contributor involvement were synthesized across each review using framework analysis. Three themes are described in this article including nomenclature, nature of involvement, and reporting impact. Papers indicate that contributor involvement in realist reviews refers to stakeholders, experts, or advisory groups (ie, professionals, clinicians, or academics). Patients and the public are occasionally subsumed into these groups and in doing so, the nature and impact of their involvement become challenging to identify and at times, is lost completely. Our review findings indicate a need for the realist review community to develop guidance to support researchers in their future collaboration with contributors, including patients and the public.

Towards an understanding of GPs' viewpoint on diagnosing postnatal depression in general practice: a small-scale realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Less than half of postnatal depression cases are identified in routine clinical assessment. Guidelines and current literature suggest that general practitioners (GPs) may have an opportunistic role in detecting postnatal depression due to their early contact and existing rapport with many new mothers. There is limited research on the diagnostic approaches chosen by GPs in different GP-patient contexts. Our small-scale study evaluates the thought processes of seven GPs based in one practice when forming a clinical diagnosis of postnatal depression under different contexts. METHODS: Seven GP participants were interviewed using case vignettes about postnatal depression, based on an adapted Johari's window framework. A realist approach to analysis was undertaken with the intention of understanding GPs' responses to different situations. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations were constructed, and a programme theory was formed to consolidate the findings. FINDINGS: Findings suggest that diagnoses may be a clinician-led or collaborative process between GP and patient. In collaborative contexts, stigmatising views were addressed by GPs, time for self-reflection was encouraged and mothers' views were accounted for. Clinician-led diagnoses often occurred in contexts where there was a lack of acknowledgement of symptoms on behalf of the patient or where safety was a concern. The personal and clinical experience of GPs themselves, as well as effective communication channels with other primary care professionals, was significant mechanisms. CONCLUSION: GPs use a variety of strategies to support patient disclosure and acceptance of their condition. The complexity of GP-patient contexts may influence the clinical thought process. We address some of the gaps in existing literature by exploring postnatal depression diagnosis in primary care and provide tentative explanations to suggest what works, for whom and in what contexts.

Team Processes in Canadian Primary Healthcare: A Realist Review.

To provide effective, comprehensive care to increasingly complex patients in Canadian communities, healthcare providers are shifting from solo providers of primary care to interprofessional, team-based primary healthcare services. Team-based care is considered one of the most effective means of caring for complex patients, including frail elders and individuals with chronic illness, mental health issues and addictions. Team-based care relies on effective team processes, the social or relational processes that enhance team collaboration and decision making. This realist review will highlight the team processes associated with high-performing teams and provide team development and sustainment strategies for providers and healthcare decision makers.

A Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Model of Gaucher Disease Type 1 Provides Mechanistic Insight Into the Response to Substrate Reduction Therapy With Eliglustat.

Gaucher's disease type 1 (GD1) leads to significant morbidity and mortality through clinical manifestations, such as splenomegaly, hematological complications, and bone disease. Two types of therapies are currently approved for GD1: enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), and substrate reduction therapy (SRT). In this study, we have developed a quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) model, which recapitulates the effects of eliglustat, the only first-line SRT approved for GD1, on treatment-naïve or patients with ERT-stabilized adult GD1. This multiscale model represents the mechanism of action of eliglustat that leads toward reduction of spleen volume. Model capabilities were illustrated through the application of the model to predict ERT and eliglustat responses in virtual populations of adult patients with GD1, representing patients across a spectrum of disease severity as defined by genotype-phenotype relationships. In summary, the QSP model provides a mechanistic computational platform for predicting treatment response via different modalities within the heterogeneous GD1 patient population.