Unpacking the Cinderella black box of complex intervention development through the Partners at Care Transitions (PACT) programme of research.

INTRODUCTION: Complex intervention development has been described as the 'Cinderella' black box in health services research. Greater transparency in the intervention development process is urgently needed to help reduce research waste. METHODS: We applied a new consensus-based framework for complex intervention development to our programme of research, in which we developed an intervention to improve the safety and experience of care transitions for older people. Through this process, we aimed to reflect on the framework's utility for intervention development and identify any important gaps within it to support its continued development. FINDINGS: The framework was a useful tool for transparent reporting of the process of complex intervention development. We identified potential 'action' gaps in the framework including 'consolidation of evidence' and 'development of principles' that could bracket and steer decision-making in the process. CONCLUSIONS: We consider that the level of transparency demonstrated in this report, aided through use of the framework, is essential in the quest for reducing research waste. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We have involved our dedicated patient and public involvement group in all work packages of this programme of research. Specifically, they attended and contributed to co-design workshops and contributed to finalizing the intervention for the pilot evaluation. Staff also participated by attending co-design workshops, helping us to prioritize content ideas for the intervention and supporting the development of intervention components outside of the workshops.

Patient and public co-creation of healthcare safety and healthcare system resilience: The case of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare system resilience is a conceptual approach that seeks to explore how health services adapt and respond to variability in demand and resources. As has been witnessed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services have undergone many reconfigurations. One understudied aspect of how the 'system' is able to adapt and respond is the contribution of key stakeholders-patients and families, and in the context of the pandemic, the general public as a whole. This study aimed to understand what people were doing during the first wave of the pandemic to protect the safety of their health, and the health of others from COVID-19, and the resilience of the healthcare system. METHODS: Social media (Twitter) was used as a method of recruitment due to its ability for social reach. Twenty-one participants took part in 57 semistructured interviews over three time points from June to September 2020. The included an initial interview and invitation to two follow-up interviews after 3 and 6 weeks. Interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom-an encrypted secure video conferencing software. A reflexive thematic analysis approach to analysis was used. RESULTS: Three themes, each with its own subthemes were identified in the analysis: (1) A 'new safety normal'; (2) Existing vulnerabilities and heightened safety and (3) Are we all in this together? CONCLUSION: This study found that the public had a role in supporting the resilience of healthcare services and systems during the first wave of the pandemic by adapting their behaviour to protect themselves and others, and to avoid overwhelming the National Health Service. People who had existing vulnerabilities were more likely to experience safety gaps in their care, and be required to step in to support their safety, despite it being more difficult for them to do so. It may be that the most vulnerable were previously required to do this extra work to support the safety of their care and that the pandemic has just illuminated this issue. Future research should explore existing vulnerabilities and inequalities, and the heightened safety consequences created by the pandemic. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC), Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Research Fellow and NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC Patient Involvement in Patient Safety theme lay leader are involved in the preparation of a lay version of the findings within this manuscript.

Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform.

INTRODUCTION: Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. METHODS: Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. CONCLUSION: Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development.

Improving the safety and experience of transitions from hospital to home: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of the 'Your Care Needs You' intervention versus usual care.

BACKGROUND: The 'Your Care Needs You' (YCNY) intervention aims to increase the safety and experience of transitions for older people through greater patient involvement during the hospital stay. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted on NHS inpatient wards (clusters) where ≥ 40% of patients were routinely ≥ 75 years. Wards were randomised to YCNY or usual care using an unequal allocation ratio (3:2). We aimed to recruit up to 20 patients per ward. Follow-up included routine data collection and questionnaires at 5-, 30-, and 90-days post-discharge. Eligible patients were ≥ 75 years, discharged home, stayed overnight on participating wards, and could read and understand English. The trial assessed the feasibility of delivering YCNY and the trial methodology through recruitment rates, outcome completion rates, and a qualitative evaluation. The accuracy of using routinely coded data for the primary outcome in the definitive trial was assessed by extracting discharge information for up to ten nonindividual consenting patients per ward. RESULTS: Ten wards were randomised (6 intervention, 4 control). One ward withdrew, and two wards were unable to deliver the intervention. Seven-hundred twenty-one patients were successfully screened, and 161 were recruited (95 intervention, 66 control). The patient post-discharge attrition rate was 17.4% (n = 28). Primary outcome data were gathered for 91.9% of participants with 75.2% and 59.0% providing secondary outcome data at 5 and 30 days post-discharge respectively. Item completion within questionnaires was generally high. Post-discharge follow-up was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting 90-day response rates (16.8%). Data from 88 nonindividual consenting patients identified an error rate of 15% when using routinely coded data for the primary outcome. No unexpected serious adverse events were identified. Most patients viewed YCNY favourably. Staff agreed with it in principle, but ward pressures and organisational contexts hampered implementation. There was a need to sustain engagement, provide clarity on roles and responsibilities, and account for fluctuations in patients' health, capacity, and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: If implementation challenges can be overcome, YCNY represents a step towards involving older people as partners in their care to improve the safety and experience of their transitions from hospital to home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 51154948.

A qualitative formative evaluation of a patient facing intervention to improve care transitions for older people moving from hospital to home.

BACKGROUND: The Partners at Care Transitions (PACTs) intervention was developed to support older people's involvement in hospital to improve outcomes at home. A booklet, question card, record sheet, induction leaflet, and patient-friendly discharge letter support patients to be more involved in their health and wellbeing, medications, activities of daily living and post-discharge care. We aimed to assess intervention acceptability, identify implementation tools, and further develop the intervention. METHODS: This was a qualitative formative evaluation involving three wards from one hospital. We recruited 25 patients aged 75 years and older. Ward staff supported intervention delivery. Data were collected in wards and patients' homes, through semi-structured interviews, observation, and documentary analysis. Data were analysed inductively and iteratively with findings sorted according to the research aims. RESULTS: Patients and staff felt there was a need for, and understood the purpose of, the PACT intervention. Most patients read the booklet but other components were variably used. Implementation challenges included time, awareness, and balancing intervention benefits against risks. Changes to the intervention and implementation included clarifying the booklet's messages, simplifying the discharge letter to reduce staff burden, and using prompts and handouts to promote awareness. CONCLUSION: The PACT intervention offers a promising new way to improve care transitions for older people by supporting patient involvement in their care. After further development of the intervention and implementation package, it will undergo further testing. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study regularly consulted a panel representing the local patient community, who supported the development of this intervention and its implementation.

Patient and Family Involvement in Serious Incident Investigations From the Perspectives of Key Stakeholders: A Review of the Qualitative Evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Investigations of healthcare harm often overlook the valuable insights of patients and families. Our review aimed to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders when patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations. METHODS: The authors searched three databases (Medline, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and Connected Papers software for qualitative studies in which patients and families were involved in serious incident investigations until no new articles were found. RESULTS: Twenty-seven papers were eligible. The perspectives of patients and families, healthcare professionals, nonclinical staff, and legal staff were sought across acute, mental health and maternity settings. Most patients and families valued being involved; however, it was important that investigations were flexible and sensitive to both clinical and emotional aspects of care to avoid compounding harm. This included the following: early active listening with empathy for trauma, sincere and timely apology, fostering trust and transparency, making realistic timelines clear, and establishing effective nonadversarial communication. Most staff perceived that patient and family involvement could improve investigation quality, promote an open culture, and help ensure future safety. However, it was made difficult when multidisciplinary input was absent, workload and staff turnover were high, training and support needs were unmet, and fears surrounded litigation. Potential solutions included enhancing the clarity of roles and responsibilities, adequately training staff, and providing long and short-term support to stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides insights to ensure patient and family involvement in serious incident investigations considers both clinical and emotional aspects of care, is meaningful for all key stakeholders, and avoids compounding harm. However, significant gaps in the literature remain.

Differences in comprehending and acting on pandemic health risk information: a qualitative study using mental models.

BACKGROUND: A worldwide pandemic of a new and unknown virus is characterised by scientific uncertainty. However, despite this uncertainty, health authorities must still communicate complex health risk information to the public. The mental models approach to risk communication describes how people perceive and make decisions about complex risks, with the aim of identifying decision-relevant information that can be incorporated into risk communication interventions. This study explored how people use mental models to make sense of scientific information and apply it to their lives and behaviour in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: This qualitative study enrolled 15 male and female participants of different ages, with different levels of education and occupational backgrounds and from different geographical regions of Norway. The participants were interviewed individually, and the interview data were subjected to thematic analysis. The interview data were compared to a expert model of COVID-19 health risk communication based on online information from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Materials in the interview data not represented by expert model codes were coded inductively. The participants' perceptions of and behaviours related to health risk information were analysed across three themes: virus transmission, risk mitigation and consequences of COVID-19. RESULTS: The results indicate that people placed different meanings on the medical and scientific words used by experts to explain the pandemic (e.g., virus transmission and the reproduction number). While some people wanted to understand why certain behaviour and activities were considered high risk, others preferred simple, clear messages explaining what to do and how to protect themselves. Similarly, information about health consequences produced panic in some interviewees and awareness in others. CONCLUSION: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to public health risk communication. Empowering people with decision-relevant information necessitates targeted and balanced risk communication.

What Do Patients and Their Carers Do to Support the Safety of Cancer Treatment and Care? A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and their carers face a multitude of challenges in the treatment journey; the full scope of how they are involved in promoting safety and supporting resilient healthcare is not known. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to undertake a scoping review to explore, document, and understand existing research, which explores what cancer patients and their carers do to support the safety of their treatment and care. DESIGN: This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Five online databases were searched from 2000 to 2021 to identify primary literature exploring perspectives on patient and caregiver involvement in maintaining their safety during cancer care. Narrative synthesis was then conducted on the included literature. RESULTS: Of the 1582 results generated from the initial search, 16 studies were included in the review. Most consisted of qualitative semistructured interviews with patients, as well as carers and healthcare professionals (HCP). Four narrative themes were identified: patient perception of safety and their involvement; patients take charge of their own care and well-being; safety as a dynamic collective responsibility; and carers are an undersupported asset. Patients and their carers involve themselves in a variety of behaviors in physical care, well-being, communication, and care coordination to ensure safety and support system resilience. This review adds a novel perspective on cancer patient and caregiver involvement in supporting resilient healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and their carers play an important role in promoting safe cancer care and healthcare system resilience. Further research is recommended to realize the full extent of the system gaps encountered and mediated by patients and their carers.

What do primary care staff think about patients accessing electronic health records? A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Patients have expressed a growing interest in having easy access to their personal health information, and internationally there has been increasing policy focus on patient and care records being more accessible. Limited research from the UK has qualitatively explored this topic from the primary care staff perspective. This study aimed to understand what primary care staff think about patients accessing electronic health records, highlighting errors in electronic health records, and providing feedback via online patient portals. METHODS: A focus group study involving 19 clinical and non-clinical primary care staff. Primary care practices were purposively sampled based on practice size and the percentage of patients using online services. Data were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: (1) Information - what, why and when? (2) Changing behaviours and protecting relationships, and (3) Secure access and safeguarding. The emotional considerations and consequences for staff and patients featured prominently in the data as an overarching theme. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care staff described being invested and supportive of patients accessing their electronic health records, and acknowledged the numerous potential benefits for safety. Uncertainty around the parameters of access, the information available and what this might look like in the future, processes for patients highlighting errors in records, relational issues, security and safeguarding and equitable access, were key areas warranting examination in future research.

Humanizing harm: Using a restorative approach to heal and learn from adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare is not without risk. Despite two decades of policy focus and improvement efforts, the global incidence of harm remains stubbornly persistent, with estimates suggesting that 10% of hospital patients are affected by adverse events. METHODS: We explore how current investigative responses can compound the harm for all those affected-patients, families, health professionals and organizations-by neglecting to appreciate and respond to the human impacts. We suggest that the risk of compounded harm may be reduced when investigations respond to the need for healing alongside system learning, with the former having been consistently neglected. DISCUSSION: We argue that incident responses must be conceived within a relational as well as a regulatory framework, and that this-a restorative approach-has the potential to radically shift the focus, conduct and outcomes of investigative processes. CONCLUSION: The identification of the preconditions and mechanisms that enable the success of restorative approaches in global health systems and legal contexts is required if their demonstrated potential is to be realized on a larger scale. The policy must be co-created by all those who will be affected by reforms and be guided by restorative principles. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This viewpoint represents an international collaboration between a clinician academic, safety scientist and harmed patient and family members. The paper incorporates key findings and definitions from New Zealand's restorative response to surgical mesh harm, which was co-designed with patient advocates, academics and clinicians.

Creating Effective, Evidence-Based Video Communication of Public Health Science (COVCOM Study): Protocol for a Sequential Mixed Methods Effect Study.

BACKGROUND: The nonlinear nature of contagious diseases and the potential for exponential growth can be difficult to grasp for the general public. This has strong implications for public health communication, which needs to be both easily accessible and efficient. A pandemic is an extreme situation, and the accompanying strict societal measures are generally easier to accept if one understands the underlying reasoning behind them. Bringing about informed attitude change and achieving compliance to strict restrictions requires explanations of scientific concepts and terminologies that laypersons can understand. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the project is to develop effective, evidence-based modes of video communication for translating complex, but important, health messages about pandemics to both the general population and decision makers. The study uses COVID-19 as a case to learn and prepare society for handling the ongoing and future pandemics, as well as to provide evidence-based tools for the science communication toolbox. METHODS: The project applies a mixed methods design, combining qualitative methods (eg, interviews, observational studies, literature reviews) and quantitative methods (eg, randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). The project brings together researchers from a wide range of academic fields, as well as communication industry professionals. RESULTS: This study has received funding from the Trond Mohn Foundation through the Research Council of Norway's "COVID-19 Emergency Call for Proposals" March 2020. Recruitment and data collection for the exploratory first phase of the project ran from February 2021 to March 2021. Creative communication work started in May 2021, and the production of videos for use in the RCTs in the final phase of the project started in September 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVCOM project will take on several grand challenges within the field of communicating science and provide evidence-based tools to the science communication toolbox. A long-term goal of the project is to contribute to the creation of a more resilient health care system by developing communication responses tailormade for different audiences, preparing society for any future pandemic. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34275.

How do we educate medical students interprofessionally about patient safety? A scoping review.

Medical education has an important role in developing attitudes, behaviors and cultures that support safe care. Increasingly, however, research has argued for a more interprofessional approach to be taken. This scoping review examines the design and impact of interprofessional education interventions involving medical students that focus on patient safety. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL between January 2000 and November 2019. Studies were eligible if they included medical students and at least one other profession, interactive learning, a strong emphasis on patient safety in the learning objectives, and an empirical method of evaluation. Forty-three studies met these criteria and the diverse range of approaches to intervention design and method of evaluation are detailed in this review. We found that interprofessional patient safety education interventions are generally well received by students with knowledge and skill gain documented; several also reported changes in student behaviour. However, the lack of empirically driven study designs, combined with the lack of rigour when reporting, makes it difficult to draw clear comparisons. Future research should address this, and in particular, report how and why the intervention has been designed to be delivered interprofessionally.

Resilient and responsive healthcare services and systems: challenges and opportunities in a changing world.

BACKGROUND: Resilient and responsive healthcare systems is on the agenda as ever before. COVID-19, specialization of services, resource demands, and technology development are all examples of aspects leading to adaptations among stakeholders at different system levels whilst also attempting to maintain high service quality and safety. This commentary sets the scene for a journal collection on Resilient and responsive health systems in a changing world. The commentary aims to outline main challenges and opportunities in resilient healthcare theory and practice globally, as a backdrop for contributions to the collection. MAIN TEXT: Some of the main challenges in this field relate to a myriad of definitions and approaches to resilience in healthcare, and a lack of studies having multilevel perspectives. Also, the role of patients, families, and the public in resilient and responsive healthcare systems is under researched. By flipping the coin, this illustrates opportunities for research and practice and raise key issues that future resilience research should pay attention to. The potential of combining theoretical lenses from different resilience traditions, involvement of multiple stakeholders in co-creating research and practice improvement, and modelling and visualizing resilient performance are all opportunities to learn more about how healthcare succeeds under stress and normal operations. CONCLUSION: A wide understanding of resilience and responsiveness is needed to support planning and preparation for future disasters and for handling the routine small-scale adaptation. This collection welcomes systematic reviews, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research on the topic of resilience and responsiveness in all areas of the health system.

Health authorities' health risk communication with the public during pandemics: a rapid scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Responses from the H1N1 swine flu pandemic and the recent COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic provide an opportunity for insight into the role of health authorities' ways of communicating health risk information to the public. We aimed to synthesise the existing evidence regarding different modes of communication used by health authorities in health risk communication with the public during a pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for publications in English from January 2009 through October 2020, covering both the full H1N1 pandemic and the response phase during the COVID-19 pandemic. The search resulted in 1440 records, of which 48 studies met our eligibility criteria. RESULTS: The present review identified studies across a broad interdisciplinary field of health risk communication. The majority focused on the H1N1 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. A content analysis of the studies identified three categories for modes of communication: i) communication channels, ii) source credibility and iii) how the message is communicated. The identified studies on social media focused mainly on content and engagement, while studies on the effect of the use of social media and self-protective behaviour were lacking. Studies on the modes of communication that take the diversity of receivers in the field into account are lacking. A limited number of studies of health authorities' use of graphic and audio-visual means were identified, yet these did not consider/evaluate creative communication choices. CONCLUSION: Experimental studies that investigate the effect of health authorities' videos and messages on social media platforms and self-protective behaviour are needed. More studies are needed across the fields of health risk communication and media studies, including visual communication, web design, video and digital marketing, at a time when online digital communication is central to reaching the public.

Exploring patient safety outcomes for people with learning disabilities in acute hospital settings: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To produce a narrative synthesis of published academic and grey literature focusing on patient safety outcomes for people with learning disabilities in an acute hospital setting. DESIGN: Scoping review with narrative synthesis. METHODS: The review followed the six stages of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We searched four research databases from January 2000 to March 2021, in addition to handsearching and backwards searching using terms relating to our eligibility criteria-patient safety and adverse events, learning disability and hospital setting. Following stakeholder input, we searched grey literature databases and specific websites of known organisations until March 2020. Potentially relevant articles and grey literature materials were screened against the eligibility criteria. Findings were extracted and collated in data charting forms. RESULTS: 45 academic articles and 33 grey literature materials were included, and we organised the findings around six concepts: (1) adverse events, patient safety and quality of care; (2) maternal and infant outcomes; (3) postoperative outcomes; (4) role of family and carers; (5) understanding needs in hospital and (6) supporting initiatives, recommendations and good practice examples. The findings suggest inequalities and inequities for a range of specific patient safety outcomes including adverse events, quality of care, maternal and infant outcomes and postoperative outcomes, in addition to potential protective factors, such as the roles of family and carers and the extent to which health professionals are able to understand the needs of people with learning disabilities. CONCLUSION: People with learning disabilities appear to experience poorer patient safety outcomes in hospital. The involvement of family and carers, and understanding and effectively meeting the needs of people with learning disabilities may play a protective role. Promising interventions and examples of good practice exist, however many of these have not been implemented consistently and warrant further robust evaluation.

Improving patient experience and safety at transitions of care through the Your Care Needs You (YCNY) intervention: a study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients, particularly older people, often experience safety issues when transitioning from hospital to home. Although the evidence is currently equivocal as to how we can improve this transition of care, interventions that support patient involvement may be more effective. The 'Your Care Needs You' (YCNY) intervention supports patients to 'know more' and 'do more' whilst in hospital in order that they better understand their health condition and medications, maintain their daily activities, and can seek help at home if required. The intervention aims to reduce emergency hospital readmissions and improve safety and experience during the transition to home. METHODS: As part of the Partners At Care Transitions (PACT) programme of research, a multi-centred cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) will be conducted to explore the feasibility of the YCNY intervention and trial methodology. Data will be used to refine the intervention and develop a protocol for a definitive cRCT.Ten acute hospital wards (the clusters) from varying medical specialties including older peoples' medicine, trauma and orthopaedics, cardiology, intermediate care, and stroke will be randomised to deliver YCNY or usual care on a 3:2 basis. Up to 200 patients aged 75 years and over and discharged to their own homes will be recruited to the study. Patients will complete follow-up questionnaires at 5-, 30-, and 90-days post-discharge and readmission data up to 90-days post-discharge will be extracted from their medical records.Study outcomes will include measures of feasibility (e.g. screening, recruitment, and retention data) and processes required to collect routine data at a patient and ward level. In addition, interviews and observations involving up to 24 patients/carers and 28 staff will be conducted to qualitatively assess the acceptability, usefulness, and feasibility of the intervention and implementation package to patients and staff. A separate sub-study will be conducted to explore how accurately primary outcome data (30-day emergency hospital readmissions) can be gathered for the definitive cRCT. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the feasibility of the YCNY intervention which aims to improve safety and experience during transitions of care. It will identify key methodological and implementation issues that need to be addressed prior to assessing the effectiveness of the YCNY intervention in a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio: 42191; ISTCRN: ISRCTN51154948. Registered 16/07/2019.

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 ).

The early experiences of Physician Associate students in the UK: A regional cross-sectional study investigating factors associated with engagement.

BACKGROUND: The number of physician associates (PAs) training and working in the UK has increased over the last few years following the proliferation of postgraduate courses. Understanding early experiences and what impacts on engagement is important if we are to appropriately support this relatively new professional group. METHODS: This paper reports on a cross-sectional analysis of the first year of data from a prospective 10-year longitudinal cohort study. First year PA students (n = 89) were enrolled from five universities in one UK region where the training programmes were less than 2 years old. Data collected were: demographic information, wellbeing, burnout and engagement, expectations, placement experience, performance and caring responsibilities. Pearson's correlations were used to examine relationships between variables and to select variables for a hierarchical regression analysis to understand which factors were associated with engagement. Descriptive statistics were calculated for questions relating to experience. RESULTS: The experiences of PA students during their first 3-6 months were mixed. For example, 78.7% of students felt that there were staff on placement they could go to for support, however, 44.8% reported that staff did not know about the role and 61.3% reported that staff did not know what clinical work they should undertake. Regression analysis found that their level of engagement was associated with their perceived career satisfaction, overall well-being, and caring responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: The support systems required for PAs may need to be examined as results showed that the PA student demographic is different to that of medical students and caring responsibilities are highly associated with engagement. A lack of understanding around the PA role in clinical settings may also need to be addressed in order to better support and develop this workforce.