"They seemed to be like cogs working in different directions": a longitudinal qualitative study on Long COVID healthcare services in the United Kingdom from a person-centred lens.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented significant challenges to the already over-stretched healthcare system in the United Kingdom (UK). These challenges are particularly pronounced for people living with the novel condition of Long COVID (LC) as they often face persistent and fluctuating symptoms, encountering prolonged uncertainty when seeking medical support. Despite a growing understanding of the healthcare challenges associated with LC, existing qualitative studies have predominantly focused on individual experiences rather than examining the structural aspects of healthcare. METHODS: A longitudinal qualitative study with 80 participants and 12 healthcare practitioners was conducted in the UK to explore the healthcare experiences of those with LC. In total, 178 interviews (with attrition) were collected across two rounds, from November 2021 to March 2022, and from June to October 2022. RESULTS: Embracing a person-centred framework that recognises and nurtures interconnected individual, relational, and existential needs, we investigated healthcare experiences related to LC across primary, secondary, and specialist integrated care. Using this perspective, we identified three overarching themes. Theme 1 addresses the persistent hurdle of accessing primary care as the initial point of contact for LC healthcare; Theme 2 underscores the complexity of navigating secondary care; and Theme 3 encapsulates the distinctive challenges of developing LC integrated care. These themes are interlinked, as people with LC often had to navigate or struggle between the various systems, with practitioners seeking to collaborate across the breadth of their professional responsibilities. CONCLUSION: From a person-centred approach, we were able to identify the needs of those affected by lasting LC symptoms and comprehend how health services intricately influence these needs. The focus on healthcare systems also captures the nuanced impact that continuing healthcare struggles can have on people's identity. As such, our findings provide evidence to inform a more effective and sustainable delivery of person-centred care for people with LC across various healthcare settings and over time.

'I am just a shadow of who I used to be'-Exploring existential loss of identity among people living with chronic conditions of Long COVID.

Identity loss and (re)construction forms a central debate in sociology of chronic illness. Living with chronic/persistent health conditions may raise questions about how disruptions can touch upon and further threaten the very roots of existence, by which people reflexively perceive a coherent and stable sense of 'being-in-the-world'. Whilst medical sociologists have shown interest in 'existential loss' in chronic illness, this question remains largely underexplored. Adopting a qualitative study on Long COVID (LC) as an example, this article illuminates existential identity loss as a deeply painful experience of losing body as a fundamental medium to retain continuity and consistency of one's narratively constructed identity. Interviews with 80 LC sufferers in the UK revealed that living with persistent and often uncertain symptoms and disruptions can cause the loss of biographical resources and resilience, making it difficult to reflexively understand their own being within the world. Their dynamic responses to LC also highlighted how sufferers' longing for a narratively coherent self can profoundly shape the ongoing construction of their identity in chronic health conditions. These insights into the complicated and often hard-to-express existential pain of identity loss can also nurture more holistic understandings of and support for LC and chronic illness more broadly.

Being pregnant and becoming a parent during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative study with women in the Born in Bradford COVID-19 research study.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty around the risk of COVID-19 to pregnant women and their babies prompted precautionary restrictions on their health and care during the pandemic. Maternity services had to adapt to changing Government guidance. Coupled with the imposition of national lockdowns in England and restrictions on daily activities, women's experiences of pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period, and their access to services, changed rapidly. This study was designed to understand women's experiences of pregnancy, labour and childbirth and caring for a baby during this time. METHODS: This was an inductive longitudinal qualitative study, using in-depth interviews by telephone with women in Bradford, UK, at three timepoints during their maternity journey (18 women at timepoint one, 13 at timepoint two and 14 at timepoint three). Key topics explored were physical and mental wellbeing, experience of healthcare services, relationships with partners and general impact of the pandemic. Data were analysed using the Framework approach. A longitudinal synthesis identified over-arching themes. RESULTS: Three longitudinal themes captured what was important to women: (1) women feared being alone at critical points in their maternity journey, (2) the pandemic created new norms for maternity services and women's care, and (3) finding ways to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic in pregnancy and with a baby. CONCLUSIONS: Modifications to maternity services impacted significantly on women's experiences. The findings have informed national and local decisions about how best to direct resources to reduce the impact of COVID-19 restrictions and the longer-term psychological impact on women during pregnancy and postnatally.

Compliant citizens, defiant rebels or neither? Exploring change and complexity in COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and decisions in Bradford, UK: Findings from a follow-up qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have been the central pillar of the public health response to the pandemic, intended to enable us to 'live with Covid'. It is important to understand change and complexity of COVID-19 vaccines attitudes and decisions to maximize uptake through an empathetic lens. OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors that influenced people's COVID-19 vaccines decisions and how their complex attitudes towards the vaccines had changed in an eventful year. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a follow-up study that took place in Bradford, UK between October 2021 and January 2022, 1 year after the original study. In-depth phone interviews were conducted with 12 (of the 20 originally interviewed) people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Eleven of the 12 participants interviewed had received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and most intended to have a booster dose. Participants described a variety of reasons why they had decided to have the vaccines, including the following: feeling at increased risk at work; protecting family and others in their communities; unrestricted travel and being influenced by the vaccine decisions of family, friends and colleagues. All participants discussed ongoing interaction with COVID-19 misinformation and for some, this meant they were uneasy about their decision to have the vaccine. They described feeling overloaded by and disengaged from COVID-19 information, which they often found contradictory and some felt mistrustful of the UK Government's motives and decisions during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants had managed to navigate an overwhelming amount of circulating COVID-19 misinformation and chosen to have two or more COVID-19 vaccines, even if they had been previously said they were unsure. However, these decisions were complicated, demonstrating the continuum of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. This follow-up study underlines that vaccine attitudes are changeable and contextual. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The original study was developed through a rapid community and stakeholder engagement process in 2020. Discussion with the Bradford Council Public Health team and the public through the Bradford COVID-19 Community Insights Group was undertaken in 2021 to identify important priorities for this follow-up study.

'I don't know what to do or where to go'. Experiences of accessing healthcare support from the perspectives of people living with Long Covid and healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Bradford, UK.

BACKGROUND: In October 2022, it was estimated 2.3 million people in the United Kingdom have self-reported Long Covid (LC). Many people have reported not receiving adequate healthcare support. There is a lack of research which provides an in-depth exploration of the barriers faced by people with LC in accessing healthcare support. It is important to understand these barriers to provide better support, care and advice for those experiencing LC. OBJECTIVE: To understand the barriers faced in accessing primary, secondary and specialist healthcare support for people with LC. DESIGN AND PARTICIPATION: 40 interviews were conducted with people living with LC in Bradford alongside 12 interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) providing LC support in Bradford healthcare settings. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: People living with LC had a large degree of difficulty in accessing healthcare services for LC support. We categorized the healthcare access experiences of participants into five main types: (1) being unable to access primary care, (2) accessing primary care but receiving (perceived) inadequate support, (3) extreme persistence, (4) alternatives to mainstream health care and (5) positive experiences. There was a severe lack of access to specialist LC services. Ethnic minority participants faced a further barrier of mistrust and fear of services deterring them from accessing support. HCPs discussed systemic barriers to delivering services. Experiences were embedded in macrostructural issues further exacerbated by the pandemic. CONCLUSION: To better support people with LC, the barriers faced in accessing healthcare support must be addressed. Of significance, improvements to general practitioner access are required; especially as GPs are the first line of support for people living with LC. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: A patient and public involvement group is engaged at regular intervals in the project.

A glimpse behind the organisational curtain: A dramaturgical analysis exploring the ways healthcare staff engage with online patient feedback 'front' and 'backstage' at three hospital Trusts in England.

Healthcare staff are encouraged to use feedback from their patients to inform service and quality improvement. Receiving patient feedback via online channels is a relatively new phenomenon that has rarely been conceptualised. Further, the implications of a wide, varied and unknown(able) audience being able to view and interact with online patient feedback are yet to be understood. We applied a theoretical lens of dramaturgy to a large ethnographic dataset, collected across three NHS Trusts during 2019/2020. We found that organisations demonstrated varying levels of 'preparedness to perform' online, from invisibility through to engaging in public conversation with patients within a wider mission for transparency. Restrictive 'cast lists' of staff able to respond to patients was the hallmark of one organisation, whereas another devolved responding responsibility amongst a wide array of multidisciplinary staff. The visibility of patient-staff interactions had the potential to be culturally disruptive, dichotomously invoking either apprehensions of reputational threat or providing windows of opportunity. We surmise that a transparent and conversational feedback response frontstage aligns with the ability to better prioritise backstage improvement. Legitimising the autonomous frontstage activity of diverse staff groups may help shift organisational culture, and gradually ripple outwards a shared responsibility for transparent improvement.

The feasibility and acceptability of implementing video reflexive ethnography (VRE) as an improvement tool in acute maternity services.

BACKGROUND: Video-reflexive ethnography (VRE) has been argued to be an alternative approach to collaborative learning in healthcare teams, more able to capture the complexities of the healthcare environment than simulation. This study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of employing VRE as an improvement tool in acute maternity services. METHOD: Focused ethnography and semi-structured interviews (n = 17) explored the feasibility of employing VRE from the perspective of the researcher-facilitator, and that of the healthcare staff participants. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to generate key themes. RESULTS: We identified four themes related to feasibility of employing VRE as an improvement approach: laying the groundwork; challenges of capturing in-situ video footage; effective facilitation of reflexive feedback; and, power to change. Of note was the central role of the facilitator in building and maintaining staff trust in the process, particularly in being able to guide collaborative, non-punitive discussion during reflexive feedback sessions. Interestingly, when considering implementation of change, structural hierarchies were evident with more senior staff better able to develop and effect ideas. Two themes related to acceptability of VRE among healthcare staff were identified: staff response to the role of VRE in improvement; and the power of a different perspective. Staff were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of VRE, particularly appreciating the time, space and autonomy it afforded them to navigate and articulate ideas for change and improvement. CONCLUSION: VRE is both feasible and acceptable as an improvement tool with acute, multi-disciplinary maternity staff teams. It is an important healthcare improvement tool that could prompt the development and maintenance of team resilience factors in the face of increasing stress and burn-out of healthcare staff in maternity services.

Doing involvement: A qualitative study exploring the 'work' of involvement enacted by older people and their carers during transition from hospital to home.

CONTEXT: Being involved in one's care is prioritised within UK healthcare policy to improve care quality and safety. However, research suggests that many older people struggle with this. DESIGN: We present focused ethnographic research exploring older peoples' involvement in healthcare from hospital to home. RESULTS: We propose that being involved in care is a dynamic form of labour, which we call 'involvement work' (IW). In hospital, many patients 'entrust' IW to others; indeed, when desired, maintaining control, or being actively involved, was challenging. Patient and professionals' expectations, alongside hospital processes, promoted delegation; staff frequently did IW on patients' behalf. Many people wanted to resume IW postdischarge, but struggled because they were out of practice. DISCUSSION: Preference and capacity for involvement was dynamic, fluctuating over time, according to context and resource accessibility. The challenges of resuming IW were frequently underestimated by patients and care providers, increasing dependence on others post-discharge and negatively affecting peoples' sense and experience of (in)dependence. CONCLUSIONS: A balance needs to be struck between respecting peoples' desire/capacity for non-involvement in hospital while recognising that 'delegating' IW can be detrimental. Increasing involvement will require patient and staff roles to be reframed, though this must be done acknowledging the limits of patient desire, capability,and resources. Hospital work should be (re)organised to maximise involvement where possible and desired. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Panel contributed to research design, especially developing interview guides and patient-facing documentation. Patients were key participants within the study; it is their experiences represented.

Understanding COVID-19 misinformation and vaccine hesitancy in context: Findings from a qualitative study involving citizens in Bradford, UK.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines can offer a route out of the pandemic, yet initial research suggests that many are unwilling to be vaccinated. A rise in the spread of misinformation is thought to have played a significant role in vaccine hesitancy. To maximize uptake, it is important to understand why misinformation has been able to take hold at this time and why it may pose a more significant problem within certain contexts. OBJECTIVE: To understand people's COVID-19 beliefs, their interactions with (mis)information during COVID-19 and attitudes towards a COVID-19 vaccine. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Bradford, UK, was chosen as the study site to provide evidence to local decision makers. In-depth phone interviews were carried out with 20 people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford during Autumn 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Participants discussed a wide range of COVID-19 misinformation they had encountered, resulting in confusion, distress and mistrust. Vaccine hesitancy could be attributed to three prominent factors: safety concerns, negative stories and personal knowledge. The more confused, distressed and mistrusting participants felt about their social worlds during the pandemic, the less positive they were about a vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy needs to be understood in the context of the relationship between the spread of misinformation and associated emotional reactions. Vaccine programmes should provide a focused, localized and empathetic response to counter misinformation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A rapid community and stakeholder engagement process was undertaken to identify COVID-19 priority topics important to Bradford citizens and decision makers.

Delivering exceptionally safe transitions of care to older people: a qualitative study of multidisciplinary staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Transitions of care are often risky, particularly for older people, and shorter hospital stays mean that patients can go home with ongoing care needs. Most previous research has focused on fundamental system flaws, however, care generally goes right far more often than it goes wrong. We explored staff perceptions of how high performing general practice and hospital specialty teams deliver safe transitional care to older people as they transition from hospital to home. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in six general practices and four hospital specialties that demonstrated exceptionally low or reducing readmission rates over time. Data were also collected across four community teams that worked into or with these high-performing teams. In total, 157 multidisciplinary staff participated in semi-structured focus groups or interviews and 9 meetings relating to discharge were observed. A pen portrait approach was used to explore how teams across a variety of different contexts support successful transitions and overcome challenges faced in their daily roles. RESULTS: Across healthcare contexts, staff perceived three key themes to facilitate safe transitions of care: knowing the patient, knowing each other, and bridging gaps in the system. Transitions appeared to be safest when all three themes were in place. However, staff faced various challenges in doing these three things particularly when crossing boundaries between settings. Due to pressures and constraints, staff generally felt they were only able to attempt to overcome these challenges when delivering care to patients with particularly complex transitional care needs. CONCLUSIONS: It is hypothesised that exceptionally safe transitions of care may be delivered to patients who have particularly complex health and/or social care needs. In these situations, staff attempt to know the patient, they exploit existing relationships across care settings, and act to bridge gaps in the system. Systematically reinforcing such enablers may improve the delivery of safe transitional care to a wider range of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio (references 35272 and 36174 ).

Nurses' and surgeons' views and experiences of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention: A qualitative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore surgeons' and nurses' perspectives of managing surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. BACKGROUND: Every year, more than 10 million surgical operations are performed in the NHS in the UK. Most surgical wounds heal by primary intention, where the edges of the wound are brought together with staples, sutures, adhesive glue or clips. Sometimes wounds are deliberately left open to heal, from the base up, known as "healing by secondary intention." These wounds are often slow to heal, prone to infection and complex to manage. DESIGN: A qualitative, descriptive approach, using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Interviews with five (general, vascular and plastic) surgeons and 7 nurses (3 tissue viability nurses, 2 district and 1 community nurse, and 1 hospital nurse) working in hospital and community care settings in two locations in the north of England. Data analysis followed the recommended sequential steps of "Framework" approach. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guided the study report. RESULTS: Participants reported that the main types of wounds healing by secondary intention that they manage are extensive abdominal cavity wounds; open wounds relating to treatment for pilonidal sinus; large open wounds on the feet of patients with diabetes; and axilla and groin wounds, associated with removal of lymph nodes for cancer. Infection and prolonged time to healing were the main challenges. Negative pressure wound therapy was the most favoured treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: Negative pressure wound therapy was advocated by professionals despite a lack of research evidence indicating clinical or cost-effectiveness. Our findings underscore the need for rigorous evaluation of negative pressure wound therapy, and other wound care treatments, through studies that include economic evaluation. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Clinical decision-making in wound care could be optimised through further robust studies to inform practitioners about the cost-effectiveness of available treatments.

How to analyse longitudinal data from multiple sources in qualitative health research: the pen portrait analytic technique.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal qualitative research is starting to be used in applied health research, having been popular in social research for several decades. There is potential for a large volume of complex data to be captured, over a span of months or years across several different methods. How to analyse this volume of data - with its inherent complexity - represents a problem for health researchers. There is a previous dearth of methodological literature which describes an appropriate analytic process which can be readily employed. METHODS: We document a worked example of the Pen Portrait analytic process, using the qualitative dataset for which the process was originally developed. RESULTS: Pen Portraits are recommended as a way in which longitudinal health research data can be concentrated into a focused account. The four stages of undertaking a pen portrait are: 1) understand and define what to focus on 2) design a basic structure 3) populate the content 4) interpretation. Instructive commentary and guidance is given throughout with consistent reference to the original study for which Pen Portraits were devised. The Pen Portrait analytic process was developed by the authors, borne out of a need to effectively integrate multiple qualitative methods collected over time. Pen Portraits are intended to be adaptable and flexible, in order to meet the differing analytic needs of qualitative longitudinal health studies. CONCLUSIONS: The Pen Portrait analytic process provides a useful framework to enable researchers to conduct a robust analysis of multiple sources of qualitative data collected over time.

Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models.

BACKGROUND: Logic models are commonly used in evaluations to represent the causal processes through which interventions produce outcomes, yet significant debate is currently taking place over whether they can describe complex interventions which adapt to context. This paper assesses the logic models used in healthcare research from a complexity perspective. A typology of existing logic models is proposed, as well as a formal methodology for deriving more flexible and dynamic logic models. ANALYSIS: Various logic model types were tested as part of an evaluation of a complex Patient Experience Toolkit (PET) intervention, developed and implemented through action research across six hospital wards/departments in the English NHS. Three dominant types of logic model were identified, each with certain strengths but ultimately unable to accurately capture the dynamics of PET. Hence, a fourth logic model type was developed to express how success hinges on the adaption of PET to its delivery settings. Aspects of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) model were incorporated into a traditional logic model structure to create a dynamic "type 4" logic model that can accommodate complex interventions taking on a different form in different settings. CONCLUSION: Logic models can be used to model complex interventions that adapt to context but more flexible and dynamic models are required. An implication of this is that how logic models are used in healthcare research may have to change. Using logic models to forge consensus among stakeholders and/or provide precise guidance across different settings will be inappropriate in the case of complex interventions that adapt to context. Instead, logic models for complex interventions may be targeted at facilitators to enable them to prospectively assess the settings they will be working in and to develop context-sensitive facilitation strategies. Researchers should be clear as to why they are using a logic model and experiment with different models to ensure they have the correct type.

Patient experience feedback in UK hospitals: What types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: The comparative uses of different types of patient experience (PE) feedback as data within quality improvement (QI) are poorly understood. This paper reviews what types are currently available and categorizes them by their characteristics in order to better understand their roles in QI. METHODS: A scoping review of types of feedback currently available to hospital staff in the UK was undertaken. This comprised academic database searches for "measures of PE outcomes" (2000-2016), and grey literature and websites for all types of "PE feedback" potentially available (2005-2016). Through an iterative consensus process, we developed a list of characteristics and used this to present categories of similar types. MAIN RESULTS: The scoping review returned 37 feedback types. A list of 12 characteristics was developed and applied, enabling identification of 4 categories that help understand potential use within QI-(1) Hospital-initiated (validated) quantitative surveys: for example the NHS Adult Inpatient Survey; (2) Patient-initiated qualitative feedback: for example complaints or twitter comments; (3) Hospital-initiated qualitative feedback: for example Experience Based Co-Design; (4) Other: for example Friends & Family Test. Of those routinely collected, few elicit "ready-to-use" data and those that do elicit data most suitable for measuring accountability, not for informing ward-based improvement. Guidance does exist for linking collection of feedback to QI for some feedback types in Category 3 but these types  are not routinely used. CONCLUSION: If feedback is to be used more frequently within QI, more attention must be paid to obtaining and making available the most appropriate types.

What's the problem with patient experience feedback? A macro and micro understanding, based on findings from a three-site UK qualitative study.

CONTEXT: Collecting feedback from patients about their experiences of health care is an important activity. However, improvement based on this feedback rarely materializes. In this study, we focus on answering the question-"what is impeding the use of patient experience feedback?" METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in 2016 across three NHS hospital Trusts in the North of England. Focus groups were undertaken with ward-based staff, and hospital managers were interviewed in-depth (50 participants). We conducted a conceptual-level analysis. FINDINGS: On a macro level, we found that the intense focus on the collection of patient experience feedback has developed into its own self-perpetuating industry with a significant allocation of resource, effort and time being expended on this task. This is often at the expense of pan-organizational learning or improvements being made. On a micro level, ward staff struggled to interact with feedback due to its complexity with questions raised about the value, validity and timeliness of data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Macro and micro prohibiting factors come together in a perfect storm which provides a substantial impediment to improvements being made. Recommendations for policy change are put forward alongside recognition that high-level organizational culture/systems are currently too sluggish to allow fruitful learning and action to occur from the feedback that patients give.

Improving Patient Experience in Hospital Settings: Assessing the Role of Toolkits and Action Research Through a Process Evaluation of a Complex Intervention.

This article presents a process evaluation of the implementation and refinement of a patient experience toolkit (PET) by action researchers in six hospital wards in the English National Health Service (NHS). An initial assumption that health care professionals (HCPs) would use PET to improve patient experience proved unrealistic due to staff and service pressures. However, the action researchers' facilitation of PET and their support during the implementation of quality improvement efforts filled in for HCPs' lack of time. The findings suggest that the PET can be a successful guide for skilled facilitators working with HCPs, although excessive staff pressures should be avoided. Toolkits designed for implementation by HCPs should, therefore, be used sparingly; a more appropriate target audience may be facilitators. Furthermore, while the potential of action research is confirmed by this evaluation, HCPs' time to engage in service improvement is found to moderate the success of this increasingly prominent methodology.

Implementing electronic records in NHS secondary care organizations in England: policy and progress since 1998.

Background: A number of different policies have aimed to introduce electronic records into National Health Service (NHS) secondary care organizations in England over recent years. There has been little formal attempt to explore the overall impact of these policies (as opposed to evaluations of individual initiatives) and how they have developed and progressed over time. Sources of data: National NHS IT policy documents and evaluations of national NHS IT policy between 1998 and 2015. Areas of agreement: There has been limited progress in implementing integrated electronic records in secondary organizations since 1998. Areas of controversy: The management and execution of NHS IT policy has been poor, with over ambitious aims contributing to the limited success. Growing points: Detailed guidance on how to implement electronic records in secondary care organizations is required. The ambitions of current policy should be revisited. Areas timely for developing further research: Research exploring the costs and benefits of different approaches to introducing electronic records is needed.

How is success achieved by individuals innovating for patient safety and quality in the NHS?

BACKGROUND: Innovation in healthcare is said to be notoriously difficult to achieve and sustain yet simultaneously the health service is under intense pressure to innovate given the ever increasing demands placed upon it. Whilst many studies have looked at diffusion of innovation from an organisational perspective, few have sought to understand how individuals working in healthcare innovate successfully. We took a positive deviance approach to understand how innovations are achieved by individuals working in the NHS. METHOD: We conducted in depth interviews in 2015 with 15 individuals who had received a national award for being a successful UK innovator in healthcare. We invited only those people who were currently (or had recently) worked in the NHS and whose innovation focused on improving patient safety or quality. Thematic analysis was used. FINDINGS: Four themes emerged from the data: personal determination, the ability to broker relationships and make connections, the ways in which innovators were able to navigate organisational culture to their advantage and their ability to use evidence to influence others. Determination, focus and persistence were important personal characteristics of innovators as were skills in being able to challenge the status quo. Innovators were able to connect sometimes disparate teams and people, being the broker between them in negotiating collaborative working. The culture of the organisation these participants resided in was important with some being able to use this (and the current patient safety agenda) to their advantage. Gathering robust data to demonstrate their innovation had a positive impact and was seen as essential to its progression. CONCLUSIONS: This paper reveals a number of factors which are important to the success of innovators in healthcare. We have uncovered that innovators have particular personal traits which encourage a propensity towards change and action. Yet, for fruitful innovation to take place, it is important for relational networks and organisational culture to be receptive to change.