Understanding University Students' Perspectives towards Digital Tools for Mental Health Support: A Cross-country Study.

Background: Organisational and individual barriers often prevent university students from seeking mental health support. Digital technologies are recognised as effective in managing psychological distress and as a source of health-related information, thus representing useful options to address mental health needs in terms of accessibility and cost-effectiveness. However, university students' experiences and perspectives towards such interventions are little known. Objectives: We thus aimed to expand the existing base of scientific knowledge, focusing on this special population. Methods: Data were from the qualitative component of "the CAMPUS study", longitudinally assessing the mental health of students at the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy) and the University of Surrey (UK). We conducted in-depth interviews and thematically analysed the transcripts using the framework approach. Results: An explanatory model was derived from five themes identified across 33 interviews (15 for Italy, 18 for the UK). Students perceived that social media, apps, and podcasts could deliver relevant mental health content, ranging from primary to tertiary prevention. Wide availability and anonymity were perceived as advantages that make tools suitable for preventive interventions, to reduce mental health stigma, and as an extension of standard treatment. These goals can be hindered by disadvantages, namely lower efficacy compared to face-to-face contact, lack of personalisation, and problematic engagement. Individual and cultural specificities might influence awareness and perspectives on the use of digital technologies for mental health support. Conclusion: Although considering some specific features, digital tools could be a useful instrument to support the mental health needs of students. Since personal contact remains crucial, digital tools should be integrated with face-to-face interventions through a multi-modal approach.

Implementing and evaluating resources to support good maternity care for parents with learning disabilities: A qualitative feasibility study in England.

PROBLEM: Parents with learning disabilities are often disadvantaged and their needs not well understood in maternity services. BACKGROUND: Despite a global vision to improve maternity care, current evidence confirms poor pre- and post-natal care for parents with learning disabilities and their families. Midwives have expressed a need for support in the delivery of good care to this population of parents. AIM: To test the feasibility of implementing and evaluating two evidence-based and values-based resources - the Together Toolkit and Maternity Passport - to support good maternity care for people with learning disabilities. METHODS: A qualitative feasibility study employing semi-structured interviews with 17 midwives and 6 parents who had used the resources in practice in four NHS Trusts in the south of England. FINDINGS: Midwives and parents described how the resources positively impacted maternity care by enabling midwives, connecting networks and empowering parents. Factors affecting effective implementation of the resources were reported at an individual and setting level. DISCUSSION: Staff training to raise awareness and confidence in supporting parents with learning disabilities, and improved systems for recording parent's individual needs are required to enable the delivery of personalised care. CONCLUSION: Reasonable adjustments need to be prioritised to facilitate implementation of resources to support personalised maternity care and to address inequity for parents with learning disabilities. Aspirations for equity suggested commitment from midwives to challenge and overcome barriers to implementation. Recommendations were made to improve the resources and their implementation. These resources are free and accessible for use [www.surrey.ac.uk/togetherproject].

Care Under Pressure 2: a realist synthesis of causes and interventions to mitigate psychological ill health in nurses, midwives and paramedics.

BACKGROUND: Nurses, midwives and paramedics comprise over half of the clinical workforce in the UK National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill health. This study explored why psychological ill health is a growing problem and how we might change this. METHODS: A realist synthesis involved iterative searches within MEDLINE, CINAHL and HMIC, and supplementary handsearching and expert solicitation. We used reverse chronological quota screening and appraisal journalling to analyse each source and refine our initial programme theory. A stakeholder group comprising nurses, midwives, paramedics, patient and public representatives, educators, managers and policy makers contributed throughout. RESULTS: Following initial theory development from 8 key reports, 159 sources were included. We identified 26 context-mechanism-outcome configurations, with 16 explaining the causes of psychological ill health and 10 explaining why interventions have not worked to mitigate psychological ill health. These were synthesised to five key findings: (1) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (2) the needs of the system often over-ride staff psychological well-being at work; (3) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; (4) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Our final programme theory argues the need for healthcare organisations to rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive. This requires high standards for patient care to be balanced with high standards for staff psychological well-being; professional accountability to be balanced with having a listening, learning culture; reactive responsive interventions to be balanced by having proactive preventative interventions; and the individual focus balanced by an organisational focus. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020172420.

Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review.

Background: Nurses, midwives and paramedics are the largest collective group of clinical staff in the National Health Service and have some of the highest prevalence of psychological ill-health. Existing literature tends to be profession-specific and focused on individual interventions that place responsibility for good psychological health with nurses, midwives and paramedics themselves. Aim: To improve understanding of how, why and in what contexts nurses, midwives and paramedics experience work-related psychological ill-health; and determine which high-quality interventions can be implemented to minimise psychological ill-health in these professions. Methods: Realist synthesis methodology consistent with realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards' reporting guidelines. Data sources: First round database searching in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online Database ALL (via Ovid), cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature database (via EBSCO) and health management information consortium database (via Ovid), was undertaken between February and March 2021, followed by supplementary searching strategies (e.g. hand searching, expert solicitation of key papers). Reverse chronology screening was applied, aimed at retaining 30 relevant papers in each profession. Round two database searches (December 2021) targeted COVID-19-specific literature and literature reviews. No date limits were applied. Results: We built on seven key reports and included 75 papers in the first round (26 nursing, 26 midwifery, 23 paramedic) plus 44 expert solicitation papers, 29 literature reviews and 49 COVID-19 focused articles in the second round. Through the realist synthesis we surfaced 14 key tensions in the literature and identified five key findings, supported by 26 context mechanism and outcome configurations. The key findings identified the following: (1) interventions are fragmented, individual-focused and insufficiently recognise cumulative chronic stressors; (2) it is difficult to promote staff psychological wellness where there is a blame culture; (3) the needs of the system often override staff well-being at work ('serve and sacrifice'); (4) there are unintended personal costs of upholding and implementing values at work; and (5) it is challenging to design, identify and implement interventions to work optimally for diverse staff groups with diverse and interacting stressors. Conclusions: Our realist synthesis strongly suggests the need to improve the systemic working conditions and the working lives of nurses, midwives and paramedics to improve their psychological well-being. Individual, one-off psychological interventions are unlikely to succeed alone. Psychological ill-health is highly prevalent in these staff groups (and can be chronic and cumulative as well as acute) and should be anticipated and prepared for, indeed normalised and expected. Healthcare organisations need to (1) rebalance the working environment to enable healthcare professionals to recover and thrive; (2) invest in multi-level system approaches to promote staff psychological well-being; and use an organisational diagnostic framework, such as the NHS England and NHS Improvement Health and Wellbeing framework, to self-assess and implement a systems approach to staff well-being. Future work: Future research should implement, refine and evaluate systemic interventional strategies. Interventions and evaluations should be co-designed with front-line staff and staff experts by experience, and tailored where possible to local, organisational and workforce needs. Limitations: The literature was not equivalent in size and quality across the three professions and we did not carry out citation searches using hand searching and stakeholder/expert suggestions to augment our sample. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020172420. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172420. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129528) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The National Health Service needs healthy, motivated staff to provide high-quality patient care. Nurses, midwives and paramedics experience poor psychological health (e.g. stress/anxiety) because of pressured environments and the difficulties of healthcare work. This study planned to better understand the causes of poor psychological ill-health in nurses, midwives and paramedics and find which interventions might help and why. We analysed the literature using a method called 'realist review' to understand how interventions work (or not), why, and for who. We tested our findings with patients, the public, nurses, midwives and paramedics in our stakeholder group. We reviewed over 200 papers/reports and identified five main findings: (1) existing solutions (interventions) are disjointed, focus mainly on the individual (not the system) and do not recognise enduring stressors enough; (2) when there is a blame culture it is difficult to encourage staff psychological well-being; (3) the needs of the system often override staff psychological well-being at work; (4) upholding and implementing personal and professional values at work can have negative personal costs; and (5) it is difficult to design, identify and implement solutions that work well for staff groups in different circumstances with varied causes of poor psychological health. Healthcare organisations should consider: (1) changing (rebalancing) the working environment to help healthcare professionals rest, recover and thrive; (2) investing in multiple-level system (not just individual) approaches to staff psychological well-being; (3) continuing to reduce stigma; (4) ensuring the essential needs of staff are prioritised (rest-breaks/hydration/hot food) as building blocks for other solutions; (5) addressing the blame culture, assuming staff are doing their best in difficult conditions; (6) prioritising staff needs, as well as patient needs. We will provide guidance and recommendations to policy-makers and organisational leaders to improve work cultures that tackle psychological ill-health and suggest new areas for research.

The SEE-IT Trial: emergency medical services Streaming Enabled Evaluation In Trauma: a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of bystander video livestreaming from scene to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is becoming increasingly common to aid decision making about the resources required. Possible benefits include earlier, more appropriate dispatch and clinical and financial gains, but evidence is sparse. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation and exploratory economic evaluation where working shifts during six trial weeks were randomised 1:1 to use video livestreaming during eligible trauma incidents (using GoodSAM Instant-On-Scene) or standard care only. Pre-defined progression criteria were: (1) ≥ 70% callers (bystanders) with smartphones agreeing and able to activate live stream; (2) ≥ 50% requests to activate resulting in footage being viewed; (3) Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) stand-down rate reducing by ≥ 10% as a result of live footage; (4) no evidence of psychological harm in callers or staff/dispatchers. Observational sub-studies included (i) an inner-city EMS who routinely use video livestreaming to explore acceptability in a diverse population; and (ii) staff wellbeing in an EMS not using video livestreaming for comparison to the trial site. RESULTS: Sixty-two shifts were randomised, including 240 incidents (132 control; 108 intervention). Livestreaming was successful in 53 incidents in the intervention arm. Patient recruitment (to determine appropriateness of dispatch), and caller recruitment (to measure potential harm) were low (58/269, 22% of patients; 4/244, 2% of callers). Two progression criteria were met: (1) 86% of callers with smartphones agreed and were able to activate livestreaming; (2) 85% of requests to activate livestreaming resulted in footage being obtained; and two were indeterminate due to insufficient data: (3) 2/6 (33%) HEMS stand down due to livestreaming; (4) no evidence of psychological harm from survey, observations or interviews, but insufficient survey data from callers or comparison EMS site to be confident. Language barriers and older age were reported in interviews as potential challenges to video livestreaming by dispatchers in the inner-city EMS. CONCLUSIONS: Progression to a definitive RCT is supported by these findings. Bystander video livestreaming from scene is feasible to implement, acceptable to both 999 callers and dispatchers, and may aid dispatch decision-making. Further assessment of unintended consequences, benefits and harm is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 11449333 (22 March 2022). https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11449333.

How Does a Group Reflection Intervention (Schwartz Rounds) Work within Healthcare Undergraduate Settings? A Realist Review.

Introduction: Schwartz Rounds ("Rounds") are a confidential group reflection forum, increasingly adopted to support pre-registration healthcare students. This realist review aims to understand what the available literature and key informant interviews can tell us about Rounds in this setting, asking what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why? Methods: Published literature discussing Rounds in undergraduate settings were analysed using realist methods to describe how, for whom and in which contexts Rounds work. Four key informants were interviewed using realist methods, to further develop, test and refine a programme theory of Rounds in undergraduate settings. Results: We identified five core features and five contextual adaptations.Core: Rounds provide a reflective space to discuss emotional challenges; Rounds promote an open and humanised professional culture; Rounds offer role-modelling of vulnerability, enabling interpersonal connectedness; Rounds are impactful when focused on emotional and relational elements; Rounds offer reflective insights from a wide range of perspectives.Contextual adaptations: Rounds allow reflection to be more engaging for students when they are non-mandatory; perceptions of safety within a Round varies based on multiple factors; adapting timing and themes to students' changing needs may improve engagement; resonance with stories is affected by clinical experience levels; online adaptation can increase reach but may risk psychological safety. Discussion: Schwartz Rounds are a unique intervention that can support healthcare students through their pre-registration education. The five "core" and five "contextual adaptation" features presented identify important considerations for organisations implementing Rounds for their undergraduates.

Virtually the same? Examining the impact of the COVID-19 related shift to virtual lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the UK National Health Service: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the shift to virtual lung cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically in relation to the magnitude of information technology (IT) issues and distractions and MDT members'/managers' perceptions and experiences of this shift. DESIGN: A mixed methods study comprising real-time observations of IT issues/distractions within virtual MDTM case discussions held between April and July 2021 and qualitative data from interviews/surveys. SETTING: Eight hospital organisations in Southern England. PARTICIPANTS: Team members (respiratory physicians, surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, palliative care professionals, nurses and MDT coordinators) and managers (n=190) across 8 local MDTs. RESULTS: MDTM observations (n=1664) highlighted significant variation between teams regarding IT functionality. IT issues and other distractions relating to the virtual MDTM format were observed 465 times affecting 20.6% of case discussions, most of which were audio issues (18.1%). Case discussions that had audio issues were, on average, 26 s longer (t(1652)=-2.77, p<0.01). A total of 73 MDT members and managers participated in the survey and 41 participated in interviews, with all 8 teams being represented. Increased flexibility, reduced travel time and easier real-time access to patient information were seen as the main advantages of virtual MDTMs. Views regarding the impact on relational aspects and communication differed. In line with observational findings, concerns were raised in relation to IT, including having inappropriate equipment, insufficient bandwidth (impairing image sharing and video communication) and an overarching theme that virtual meeting platforms provided were not fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential benefits of virtual MDTMs, IT issues can waste valuable MDTM time. If hospital organisations plan to continue virtual MDTMs, a functioning infrastructure is required, necessitating appropriate resource and investment.

The SEE-IT Trial: emergency medical services Streaming Enabled Evaluation In Trauma: study protocol for an interventional feasibility randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate and timely dispatch of emergency medical services (EMS) is vital due to limited resources and patients' risk of mortality and morbidity increasing with time. Currently, most UK emergency operations centres (EOCs) rely on audio calls and accurate descriptions of the incident and patients' injuries from lay 999 callers. If dispatchers in the EOCs could see the scene via live video streaming from the caller's smartphone, this may enhance their decision making and enable quicker and more accurate dispatch of EMS. The main aim of this feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive RCT to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of using live streaming to improve targeting of EMS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SEE-IT Trial is a feasibility RCT with a nested process evaluation. The study also has two observational substudies: (1) in an EOC that routinely uses live streaming to assess the acceptability and feasibility of live streaming in a diverse inner-city population and (2) in an EOC that does not currently use live streaming to act as a comparator site regarding the psychological well-being of EOC staff using versus not using live streaming. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Health Research Authority on 23 March 2022 (ref: 21/LO/0912), which included NHS Confidentiality Advisory Group approval received on 22 March 2022 (ref: 22/CAG/0003). This manuscript refers to V.0.8 of the protocol (7 November 2022). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN (ISRCTN11449333). The first participant was recruited on 18 June 2022.The main output of this feasibility trial will be the knowledge gained to help inform the development of a large multicentre RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of the use of live streaming to aid EMS dispatch for trauma incidents. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11449333.

Investigating the efficiency of lung multi-disciplinary team meetings-A mixed methods study of eight lung multi-disciplinary teams.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs), where treatment recommendations are discussed and agreed, are fundamental to effective cancer care. The increasing volume and complexity of caseloads has led to the need to transform MDTM pathways to improve efficiency and allow sufficient time for discussion of complex cases. Understanding of current functioning and inefficiencies is required to inform such transformation. METHODS: A mixed-methods observational study of all lung cancer MDTMs in one UK cancer network over 12 weeks (n = 8 MDTs, 96 MDT meetings). Data were collected on meeting attendance and on each discussed case using a validated MDT tool. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of MDT members and cancer service managers to gain understanding of perceived influences on the efficiency of MDTMs. RESULTS: In total, 1671 case discussions were observed. Models of MDT working, including referral and diagnostic pathway management, varied within the network. Attendance was quorate in only 21% of the observed MDTMs, most often lacking palliative care specialists. Over a third (37%) of observed cases were repeat discussions pre-diagnosis. Treatment recommendations were agreed in 48% of case discussions but deferred for a quarter (24%) of discussed cases, most commonly due to awaiting results. Information about patients' fitness for treatment and/or performance status score was available for 60% of cases discussed overall (30%-75% by MDT). Interviews (n = 56) identified addressing clinical and administrative workforce shortages, less reliance on the MDTM for pre-diagnostic decision-making and better availability of key clinical information about patients discussed in the MDTM as factors critical to improved MDT function. CONCLUSIONS: Inefficiencies were prevalent in all MDTMs; improvements would require an individualised approach due to the variation in ways of working. Local, regional and national support is needed for lung MDTs to develop their diagnostic workforce and facilities, and clinical and administrative resource.

Mental Health and COVID-19 in University Students: Findings from a Qualitative, Comparative Study in Italy and the UK.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 restrictions introduced several changes in university academic and social experience. Self-isolation and online teaching have amplified students' mental health vulnerability. Thus, we aimed to explore feelings and perspectives about the impact of the pandemic on mental health, comparing students from Italy and the UK. METHODS: Data were collected from the qualitative portion of "the CAMPUS study", longitudinally assessing mental health of students at the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy) and the University of Surrey (UK). We conducted in-depth interviews and thematically analysed the transcripts. RESULTS: The explanatory model was developed from four themes identified across 33 interviews: anxiety exacerbated by COVID-19; putative mechanisms leading to poor mental health; the most vulnerable subgroups; and coping strategies. Generalised and social anxiety resulted from COVID-19 restrictions by being associated with loneliness, excessive time online, unhealthy management of time and space and poor communication with the university. Freshers, international students, and people on the extremes of the introversion/extroversion spectrum, were identified as vulnerable, while effective coping strategies included taking advantage of free time, connection with family and mental health support. The impact of COVID-19 was mostly related to academic issues by students from Italy, whereas to the drastic loss of social connectedness by the UK sample. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health support for students has an essential role, and measures that encourage communication and social connectedness are likely to be beneficial.

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care. METHODS: In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care. RESULTS: Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care. DISCUSSION: Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains.

Socioeconomic differences in help seeking for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19: a UK-wide qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to rapid changes in healthcare delivery, raising concern that these changes may exacerbate existing inequalities in patient outcomes. AIM: To understand how patients' help-seeking experiences in primary care for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19 were affected by their socioeconomic status (SES). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with males and females across the UK, recruited using purposive sampling by SES. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with 39 participants (20 higher SES; 19 lower SES) who contacted primary care about possible symptoms of colorectal cancer during COVID-19. Data were analysed using framework analysis followed by comparative thematic analysis to explore differences between groups. RESULTS: Three themes were identified with differences between SES groups: 1) how people decided to seek medical help through appraisal of symptoms; 2) how people navigated services; and 3) impact of COVID-19 on how patients interacted with healthcare professionals. The lower SES group expressed uncertainty appraising symptoms and navigating services (in terms of new processes resulting from COVID-19 and worries about infection). There was also potential for increased disparity in diagnosis and management, with other methods of getting in touch (for example, email or 111) taken up more readily by higher SES patients. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that COVID-19 exacerbated disparities between higher and lower SES participants. This study raises awareness around challenges in help seeking in the context of the pandemic, which are likely to persist (post-COVID-19) as healthcare systems settle on new models of care (for example, digital). Recommendations are provided to reduce inequalities of care.

'The WOW factors': comparing workforce organization and well-being for doctors, nurses, midwives and paramedics in England.

BACKGROUND: High rates of poor mental health in healthcare staff threatens the quality and sustainability of healthcare delivery. Multi-factorial causes include the nature and structure of work. We conducted a critical review of UK NHS (England) data pertaining to: doctors, nurses, midwives and paramedics. SOURCES OF DATA: Key demographic, service architecture (structural features of work) and well-being indicators were identified and reviewed by a stakeholder group. Data searching prioritized NHS whole workforce sources (focusing on hospital and community health services staff), which were rated according to strength of evidence. FINDINGS: Key differences between professions were: (i) demographics: gender (nursing and midwifery female-dominated, doctors and paramedics more balanced); age (professions other than doctors had ageing workforces); ethnicity (greater diversity among doctors and nurses); (ii) service architecture: despite net staffing growth, turnover and retention were problematic in all professions; 41.5% doctors were consultants but smaller proportions held high grade/band roles in other professions; salaries were higher for doctors; (iii) well-being: all reported high job stress, particularly midwives and paramedics; sickness absence rates for nurses, midwives and paramedics were three times those of doctors, and presenteeism nearly double. GROWING POINTS: Sociocultural factors known to increase risk of poor mental health may explain some of the differences reported between professions. These factors and differences in service architecture are vital considerations when designing strategies to improve well-being. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Multi-level systems approaches to well-being are required that consider intersectionality and structural differences between professions; together with inter-professional national databases to facilitate monitoring.

Improving teamwork in maternity services: A rapid review of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork is essential for providing safe, effective and women-centred maternity care and several high profile investigations have highlighted the adverse conseqences of dysfuntional teamwork. Maternity teams may need support to identify the most relevant intervention(s) for improving teamwork. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe current 'off-the-shelf' teamwork interventions freely or commercially available to support improvements to teamworking in UK maternity services and conduct a gap analysis to identify areas for future development. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review METHODS: A multi-component search process was used to identify teamwork interventions, comprising: (1) bibliographic database search (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, MIDRS, NICE evidence research database); (2) identification of relevant policies and UK reports; and (3) expert input from key stakeholders (e.g., maternity service clinicians, managers, policymakers, and report authors). Data were extracted including the scope and content of each intervention and a gap analysis used to map interventions to the integrated team effectiveness model (ITEM) and structure level (macro, meso, micro) and results presented narratively. FINDINGS: Ten interventions were identified. Interventions were heterogeneous in their purpose and scope; six were classified as training courses, three were tools involving observational or diagnostics instruments, and one was a programme involving training and organisational re-design. Interventions were focused on teamwork in obstetric emergencies (n = 5), enhancing routine care (n = 4) or understanding workplace cultures (n = 1). Users of interventions could vary, from whole organisations, to departments, to individual team members. All interventions focused on micro (e.g., team leadership, communication, decision-making, cohesion, and problem solving), with two also focused on meso aspects of teamwork (resources, organisational goals). Evidence for intervention effective on objective outcomes was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that address key aspects of teamworking are available, particularly for improving safety in obstetric emergency situations. Most interventions, however, are focused on micro features, ignoring the meso (organisational) and macro (systems) features that may also impact on team effectiveness. Evidence-based team improvement interventions that address these gaps are needed. Such interventions would support team ownership of quality improvement, leading to improvements in outcomes for service users, staff and organisations.

Household Survey Measurement of Newborn Postnatal Care: Coverage, Quality Gaps, and Internal Inconsistencies in Responses.

BACKGROUND: Reliable measurement of newborn postnatal care is essential to understand gaps in coverage and quality and thereby improve outcomes. This study examined gaps in coverage and measurement of newborn postnatal care in the first 2 days of life. METHODS: We analyzed Demographic and Health Survey data from 15 countries for 71,366 births to measure the gap between postnatal contact coverage and content coverage within 2 days of birth. Coverage was a contact with the health system in the first 2 days (postnatal check or newborn care intervention), and quality was defined as reported receipt of 5 health worker-provided interventions. We examined internal consistency between interrelated questions regarding examination of the umbilical cord. RESULTS: Reported coverage of postnatal check ranged from 13% in Ethiopia to 78% in Senegal. Report of specific newborn care interventions varied widely by intervention within and between countries. Quality-coverage gaps were high, ranging from 26% in Malawi to 89% in Burundi. We found some internally inconsistent reporting of newborn care. The percentage of women who reported that a health care provider checked their newborn's umbilical cord but responded "no" to the postnatal check question was as high as 16% in Malawi. CONCLUSION: Reliable measurement of coverage and content of early postnatal newborn care is essential to track progress in improving quality of care. Postnatal contact coverage is challenging to measure because it may be difficult for women to distinguish postnatal care from intrapartum care and it is a less recognizable concept than antenatal care. Co-coverage measures may provide a useful summary of contact and content, reflecting both coverage and an aspect of quality.

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.

Exploring the macro-level, meso-level and micro-level barriers and facilitators to the provision of good quality early inflammatory arthritis (EIA) care in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from a national clinical audit of early inflammatory arthritis (EIA) shows considerable variability between hospitals in performance, unexplained by controlling for case-mix. OBJECTIVE: To explore the macro-level, meso-level and micro-level barriers and facilitators to the provision of good quality EIA care. METHODS: A qualitative study within 16 purposively sampled rheumatology units across England and Wales. Quality was assessed in relation to 11 quality indicators based on clinical opinion, evidence and variability observed in the data. Data from semi-structured interviews with staff (1-5 from each unit, 56 in total) and an online questionnaire (n=14/16 units) were integrated and analysed using the framework method for thematic analysis using a combined inductive and deductive approach (underpinned by an evidence-based framework of healthcare team effectiveness), and constant comparison of data within and between units and its relationship with the quality criteria. FINDINGS: Quality of care was influenced by an interplay between macro, meso and micro domains. The macro (eg, shared care arrangements and relationships with general practitioners) and meso (eg, managerial support and physical infrastructure) factors were found to act as crucial enablers of and barriers to higher quality service provision at the micro (team) level. These organisational factors directly influenced team structure and function, and thereby EIA care quality. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in quality of EIA care is associated with an interplay between macro, meso and micro service features. Tackling macro and meso barriers is likely to have a significant impact on quality of EIA service, and ultimately patient experience and outcomes.

Distance to available services for newborns at facilities in Malawi: A secondary analysis of survey and health facility data.

BACKGROUND: Malawi has halved the neonatal mortality rate between 1990-2018, however, is not on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal 12 per 1,000 live births. Despite a high facility birth rate (91%), mother-newborn dyads may not remain in facilities long enough to receive recommended care and quality of care improvements are needed to reach global targets. Physical access and distance to health facilities remain barriers to quality postnatal care. METHODS: Using data We used individual data from the 2015-16 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey and facility data from the 2013-14 Malawi Service Provision Assessment, linking households to all health facilities within specified distances and travel times. We calculated service readiness scores for facilities to measure their capacity to provide birth/newborn care services. We fitted multi-level regression models to evaluate the association between the service readiness and appropriate newborn care (receiving at least five of six interventions). RESULTS: Households with recent births (n = 6010) linked to a median of two birth facilities within 5-10 km and one facility within a two-hour walk. The maximum service environment scores for linked facilities median was 77.5 for facilities within 5-10 km and 75.5 for facilities within a two-hour walk. While linking to one or more facilities within 5-10km or a two-hour walk was not associated with appropriate newborn care, higher levels of service readiness in nearby facilities was associated with an increased risk of appropriate newborn care. CONCLUSIONS: Women's choice of nearby facilities and quality facilities is limited. High quality newborn care is sub-optimal despite high coverage of facility birth and some newborn care interventions. While we did not find proximity to more facilities was associated with increased risk of appropriate care, high levels of service readiness was, showing facility birth and improved access to well-prepared facilities are important for improving newborn care.

Equity in newborn care, evidence from national surveys in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: High coverage of care is essential to improving newborn survival; however, gaps exist in access to timely and appropriate newborn care between and within countries. In high mortality burden settings, health inequities due to social and economic factors may also impact on newborn outcomes. This study aimed to examine equity in co-coverage of newborn care interventions in low- and low middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. METHODS: We analysed secondary data from recent Demographic and Health Surveys in 16 countries. We created a co-coverage index of five newborn care interventions. We examined differences in coverage and co-coverage of newborn care interventions by country, place of birth, and wealth quintile. Using multilevel logistic regression, we examined the association between high co-coverage of newborn care (4 or 5 interventions) and social determinants of health. RESULTS: Coverage and co-coverage of newborn care showed large between- and within-country gaps for home and facility births, with important inequities based on individual, family, contextual, and structural factors. Wealth-based inequities were smaller amongst facility births compared to non-facility births. CONCLUSION: This analysis underlines the importance of facility birth for improved and more equitable newborn care. Shifting births to facilities, improving facility-based care, and community-based or pro-poor interventions are important to mitigate wealth-based inequities in newborn care, particularly in countries with large differences between the poorest and richest families and in countries with very low coverage of care.