A realist evaluation of devices used for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: An ethnographic study of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: It is known that heel offloading devices are widely used in clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers, even though there is a lack of robust, good quality evidence to inform their use. OBJECTIVE: To explore how and why heel offloading devices are used (or not used) and reasoning behind their use in population at high risk of developing heel pressure ulcers. METHODS: An ethnographic study was conducted as part of a realist evaluation in three orthopaedic wards in a large English hospital. Twelve observations took place, with 49 h and 35 min of patient care observed. A total of 32 patients were observed and 19 members of the nursing team were interviewed and in-depth interviews with the three ward managers were conducted. RESULTS: Although the focus of the study was on offloading devices, constant low pressure heel specific devices were also observed in use for pressure ulcer prevention, whilst offloading devices were perceived to be for higher risk patients or those already with a heel pressure ulcer. Nursing staff viewed leadership from the ward manager and the influence of the Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists as key mechanisms for the proactive use of devices. CONCLUSIONS: This study informs trial design as it has identified that a controlled clinical trial of both types of heel specific devices is required to inform evidence-based practice. Involving the ward managers and Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists during set up phase for clinical equipoise could improve recruitment. Tweetable abstract How, for whom, and in what circumstances do devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers? Observations of clinical practice.

Qualitative study exploring the design of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system for suspected head and neck cancer referrals: protocol for work packages 1 and 2 within the EVEREST-HN programme.

INTRODUCTION: Between 2009/2010 and 2019/2020, England witnessed an increase in suspected head and neck cancer (sHNC) referrals from 140 to 404 patients per 100 000 population. 1 in 10 patients are not seen within the 2-week target, contributing to patient anxiety. We will develop a pathway for sHNC referrals, based on the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator. The evolution of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system to redesign the sHNC referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) Programme comprises six work packages (WPs). This protocol describes WP1 and WP2. WP1 will obtain an understanding of language to optimise the SYmptom iNput Clinical (SYNC) system patient-reported symptom questionnaire for sHNC referrals and outline requirements for the SYNC system. WP2 will codesign key elements of the SYNC system, including the SYNC Questionnaire, and accompanying behaviour change materials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WP1 will be conducted at three acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts with variation in service delivery models and ensuring a broad mixture of social, economic and cultural backgrounds of participants. Up to 150 patients with sHNC (n=50 per site) and 15 clinicians (n=5 per site) will be recruited. WP1 will use qualitative methods including interviews, observation and recordings of consultations. Rapid qualitative analysis and inductive thematic analysis will be used to analyse the data. WP2 will recruit lay patient representatives to participate in online focus groups (n=8 per focus group), think-aloud technique and experience-based codesign and will be analysed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The committee for clinical research at The Royal Marsden, a research ethics committee and the Health Research Authority approved this protocol. All participants will give informed consent. Ethical issues of working with patients on an urgent cancer diagnostic pathway have been considered. Findings will be disseminated via journal publications, conference presentations and public engagement activities.

Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.

Background: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions, but implementation is variable. Aim: To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England. Design: Realist review and multisite case study. (1) Systematic searches to identify stakeholders' theories, tested using empirical data from primary studies. Review of falls prevention policies of acute Trusts. (2) Theory testing and refinement through observation, staff interviews (n = 50), patient and carer interviews (n = 31) and record review (n = 60). Setting: Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each. Results: Seventy-eight studies were used for theory construction and 50 for theory testing. Four theories were explored. (1) Leadership: wards had falls link practitioners but authority to allocate resources for falls prevention resided with senior nurses. (2) Shared responsibility: a key falls prevention strategy was patient supervision. This fell to nursing staff, constraining the extent to which responsibility for falls prevention could be shared. (3) Facilitation: assessments were consistently documented but workload pressures could reduce this to a tick-box exercise. Assessment items varied. While individual patient risk factors were identified, patients were categorised as high or low risk to determine who should receive supervision. (4) Patient participation: nursing staff lacked time to explain to patients their falls risks or how to prevent themselves from falling, although other staff could do so. Sensitive communication could prevent patients taking actions that increase their risk of falling. Limitations: Within the realist review, we completed synthesis for only two theories. We could not access patient records before observations, preventing assessment of whether care plans were enacted. Conclusions: (1) Leadership: There should be a clear distinction between senior nurses' roles and falls link practitioners in relation to falls prevention; (2) shared responsibility: Trusts should consider how processes and systems, including the electronic health record, can be revised to better support a multidisciplinary approach, and alternatives to patient supervision should be considered; (3) facilitation: Trusts should consider how to reduce documentation burden and avoid tick-box responses, and ensure items included in the falls risk assessment tools align with guidance. Falls risk assessment tools and falls care plans should be presented as tools to support practice, rather than something to be audited; (4) patient participation: Trusts should consider how they can ensure patients receive individualised information about risks and preventing falls and provide staff with guidance on brief but sensitive ways to talk with patients to reduce the likelihood of actions that increase their risk of falling. Future work: (1) Development and evaluation of interventions to support multidisciplinary teams to undertake, and involve patients in, multifactorial falls risk assessment and selection and delivery of tailored interventions; (2) mixed method and economic evaluations of patient supervision; (3) evaluation of engagement support workers, volunteers and/or carers to support falls prevention. Research should include those with cognitive impairment and patients who do not speak English. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020184458. 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: NIHR129488) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Many accidental falls by older people in hospitals could be avoided. There are guidelines to prevent falls, but some hospitals are better at following them than others. This study aimed to find out why. First, we looked at research and hospitals' falls policies for ideas about what stops falls. With advice from service users, we tested these ideas in four hospitals in England, watching how falls were prevented on wards for older people and people who need bone care, and talking to 50 staff, 28 patients and 3 carers. We found the following: Falls leadership: wards had staff called falls link practitioners who supported falls prevention, but senior nurses, not link practitioners, made the most important decisions. Sharing responsibility: patients with falls risks were monitored to try to stop falls. Because only nursing teams were always present to monitor patients, they had most responsibility for preventing falls. This limited sharing responsibility with other staff. Computer tools: nurses used computers to record prevention work, but high workloads could make this a 'tick-box' exercise. Computer tools reminded them to do this, although tools varied. Patients had individual falls plans, but they were also ranked more generally as high or low risk of falling, with 'high-risk' patients being monitored. Patient involvement: nursing staff did not have time to explain to patients how to prevent falls, but other staff could have such conversations. Many patients had problems like dementia and found it difficult to follow safety advice, although some could take steps to keep safe, with sensitive staff support. We need to involve patients, carers and different staff in falls prevention. Hospitals could develop computer systems to support this, think how to involve more ward staff, and provide guidance on helpful ways to talk with patients about falls.

Sleep architecture of elite soccer players surrounding match days as measured by WHOOP straps.

This study aimed to quantify and compare sleep architecture before and after home and away matches in elite soccer players from the English Premier League. Across two seasons, 6 male players (age 28 ± 5 y; body mass 85.1 ± 9.5 kg; height 1.86 ± 0.09 m) wore WHOOP straps to monitor sleep across 13 matches that kicked off before 17:00 h. For each, sleep was recorded the night before (MD-1), after (MD) and following the match (MD +1). Across these 3 days total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), sleep disturbances, wake time, light sleep, deep sleep, REM sleep, sleep and wake onsets, alongside external load, were compared. TST was reduced after MD versus MD +1 (392.9 ± 76.4 vs 459.1 ± 66.7 min, p = 0.003) but no differences existed in any other sleep variables between days (p > 0.05). TST did not differ after home (386.9 ± 75.7 min) vs. away matches (401.0 ± 78.3 min) (p = 0.475), nor did other sleep variables (p > 0.05). GPS-derived external load peaked on MD (p < 0.05). In conclusion, despite reduced TST on MD, sleep architecture was unaffected after matches played before 17:00 h, suggesting sleep quality was not significantly compromised.

Interactions that support older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with falls prevention in hospitals: An ethnographic study.

AIMS: To explore the nature of interactions that enable older inpatients with cognitive impairments to engage with hospital staff on falls prevention. DESIGN: Ethnographic study. METHODS: Ethnographic observations on orthopaedic and older person wards in English hospitals (251.25 h) and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 50 staff, 28 patients and three carers. Findings were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Interactions were often informal and personalised. Staff qualities that supported engagement in falls prevention included the ability to empathise and negotiate, taking patient perspectives into account. Although registered nurses had limited time for this, families/carers and other staff, including engagement workers, did so and passed information to nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Some older inpatients with cognitive impairments engaged with staff on falls prevention. Engagement enabled them to express their needs and collaborate, to an extent, on falls prevention activities. To support this, we recommend wider adoption in hospitals of engagement workers and developing the relational skills that underpin engagement in training programmes for patient-facing staff. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Interactions that support cognitively impaired inpatients to engage in falls prevention can involve not only nurses, but also families/carers and non-nursing staff, with potential to reduce pressures on busy nurses and improve patient safety. REPORTING METHOD: The paper adheres to EQUATOR guidelines, Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient/public contributors were involved in study design, evaluation and data analysis. They co-authored this manuscript.

Talking about falls: a qualitative exploration of spoken communication of patients' fall risks in hospitals and implications for multifactorial approaches to fall prevention.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient falls are the most common safety incident reported by hospitals worldwide. Traditionally, responses have been guided by categorising patients' levels of fall risk, but multifactorial approaches are now recommended. These target individual, modifiable fall risk factors, requiring clear communication between multidisciplinary team members. Spoken communication is an important channel, but little is known about its form in this context. We aim to address this by exploring spoken communication between hospital staff about fall prevention and how this supports multifactorial fall prevention practice. METHODS: Data were collected through semistructured qualitative interviews with 50 staff and ethnographic observations of fall prevention practices (251.25 hours) on orthopaedic and older person wards in four English hospitals. Findings were analysed using a framework approach. FINDINGS: We observed staff engaging in 'multifactorial talk' to address patients' modifiable risk factors, especially during multidisciplinary meetings which were patient focused rather than risk type focused. Such communication coexisted with 'categorisation talk', which focused on patients' levels of fall risk and allocating nursing supervision to 'high risk' patients. Staff negotiated tensions between these different approaches through frequent 'hybrid talk', where, as well as categorising risks, they also discussed how to modify them. CONCLUSION: To support hospitals in implementing multifactorial, multidisciplinary fall prevention, we recommend: (1) focusing on patients' individual risk factors and actions to address them (a 'why?' rather than a 'who' approach); (2) where not possible to avoid 'high risk' categorisations, employing 'hybrid' communication which emphasises actions to modify individual risk factors, as well as risk level; (3) challenging assumptions about generic interventions to identify what individual patients need; and (4) timing meetings to enable staff from different disciplines to participate.

A Scoping Review of Digital Technologies Used in Monitoring COVID-19.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a universal impact on humanity. All patients in the European health systems have experienced digital healthcare in some way. Digital technologies were deployed during the pandemic in various areas of the health care system. An understanding of the various technologies deployed during the pandemic and the role these technologies play will aid in the development of public health protocols for rapid response to future pandemics. This study investigated the role of technology in monitoring Covid-19 pandemic to identify the technologies utilised by the NHS (National Health Service) during the pandemic. In conclusion, the pandemic was a catalyst for general adoption of technology in healthcare. The deployment of a wide range of existing and innovative technology by the health management systems proves to be efficient in monitoring the outbreak to prevent further infection and loss of lives.

The impact of hospital command centre on patient flow and data quality: findings from the UK National Health Service.

In the last 6 years, hospitals in developed countries have been trialling the use of command centres for improving organizational efficiency and patient care. However, the impact of these command centres has not been systematically studied in the past. It is a retrospective population-based study. Participants were patients who visited the Bradford Royal Infirmary hospital, Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department, between 1 January 2018 and 31 August 2021. Outcomes were patient flow (measured as A&E waiting time, length of stay, and clinician seen time) and data quality (measured by the proportion of missing treatment and assessment dates and valid transition between A&E care stages). Interrupted time-series segmented regression and process mining were used for analysis. A&E transition time from patient arrival to assessment by a clinician marginally improved during the intervention period; there was a decrease of 0.9 min [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-1.4], 3 min (95% CI: 2.4-3.5), 9.7 min (95% CI: 8.4-11.0), and 3.1 min (95% CI: 2.7-3.5) during 'patient flow program', 'command centre display roll-in', 'command centre activation', and 'hospital wide training program', respectively. However, the transition time from patient treatment until the conclusion of consultation showed an increase of 11.5 min (95% CI: 9.2-13.9), 12.3 min (95% CI: 8.7-15.9), 53.4 min (95% CI: 48.1-58.7), and 50.2 min (95% CI: 47.5-52.9) for the respective four post-intervention periods. Furthermore, the length of stay was not significantly impacted; the change was -8.8 h (95% CI: -17.6 to 0.08), -8.9 h (95% CI: -18.6 to 0.65), -1.67 h (95% CI: -10.3 to 6.9), and -0.54 h (95% CI: -13.9 to 12.8) during the four respective post-intervention periods. It was a similar pattern for the waiting and clinician seen times. Data quality as measured by the proportion of missing dates of records was generally poor (treatment date = 42.7% and clinician seen date = 23.4%) and did not significantly improve during the intervention periods. The findings of the study suggest that a command centre package that includes process change and software technology does not appear to have a consistent positive impact on patient safety and data quality based on the indicators and data we used. Therefore, hospitals considering introducing a command centre should not assume there will be benefits in patient flow and data quality.

Staff experiences of integrating community and secondary care musculoskeletal services: A qualitative investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated models of care intend to provide seamless and timely access to health and social care services. This study investigated the integration of musculoskeletal services across community and secondary care boundaries, including the introduction of a single point of access from which patients were triaged. METHODS: Staff (n = 15) involved in service development and delivery were interviewed about how, why and to what extent integration impacted service delivery. The analysis focused on staff experiences of using an on-line patient self-referral form and co-located clinics to enhance decision-making in triage, and on the provision of educational materials and de-medicalising language in patient consultations to support self-management. RESULTS: Single point of access, including online self-referral, were operationalised during data collection, but co-located clinics were not. Triage staff explained that the volume of referrals and quality of information provided in online self-referrals sometimes constrained decision-making in triage. Secondary care staff discussed concerns that the single point of access might not consistently identify patients with hard to diagnose conditions that require timely surgical intervention. This concern appeared to constrain staff engagement with integration, potentially inhibiting the delivery of co-located clinics. However, triage staff accessed support to inform secondary care referral via alternate modes. Patient circumstances, for example, need for reassurance, necessitated multiple self-management strategies and innovative approaches were developed to provide patients ongoing and professionally led support. CONCLUSION: Findings emphasise that restructuring services requires engagement from diverse stakeholders. Collaborating with stakeholders to address their concerns about the impact of restructures on well-established pathways may help cultivate this engagement.

The effects of computerised decision support systems on nursing and allied health professional performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review and user contextualisation.

Background: Computerised decision support systems (CDSS) are widely used by nurses and allied health professionals but their effect on clinical performance and patient outcomes is uncertain. Objectives: Evaluate the effects of clinical decision support systems use on nurses', midwives' and allied health professionals' performance and patient outcomes and sense-check the results with developers and users. Eligibility criteria: Comparative studies (randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) and repeated measures studies comparing) of CDSS versus usual care from nurses, midwives or other allied health professionals. Information sources: Nineteen bibliographic databases searched October 2019 and February 2021. Risk of bias: Assessed using structured risk of bias guidelines; almost all included studies were at high risk of bias. Synthesis of results: Heterogeneity between interventions and outcomes necessitated narrative synthesis and grouping by: similarity in focus or CDSS-type, targeted health professionals, patient group, outcomes reported and study design. Included studies: Of 36,106 initial records, 262 studies were assessed for eligibility, with 35 included: 28 RCTs (80%), 3 CBA studies (8.6%), 3 ITS (8.6%) and 1 non-randomised trial, a total of 1318 health professionals and 67,595 patient participants. Few studies were multi-site and most focused on decision-making by nurses (71%) or paramedics (5.7%). Standalone, computer-based CDSS featured in 88.7% of the studies; only 8.6% of the studies involved 'smart' mobile or handheld technology. Care processes - including adherence to guidance - were positively influenced in 47% of the measures adopted. For example, nurses' adherence to hand disinfection guidance, insulin dosing, on-time blood sampling, and documenting care were improved if they used CDSS. Patient care outcomes were statistically - if not always clinically - significantly improved in 40.7% of indicators. For example, lower numbers of falls and pressure ulcers, better glycaemic control, screening of malnutrition and obesity, and accurate triaging were features of professionals using CDSS compared to those who were not. Evidence limitations: Allied health professionals (AHPs) were underrepresented compared to nurses; systems, studies and outcomes were heterogeneous, preventing statistical aggregation; very wide confidence intervals around effects meant clinical significance was questionable; decision and implementation theory that would have helped interpret effects - including null effects - was largely absent; economic data were scant and diverse, preventing estimation of overall cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: CDSS can positively influence selected aspects of nurses', midwives' and AHPs' performance and care outcomes. Comparative research is generally of low quality and outcomes wide ranging and heterogeneous. After more than a decade of synthesised research into CDSS in healthcare professions other than medicine, the effect on processes and outcomes remains uncertain. Higher-quality, theoretically informed, evaluative research that addresses the economics of CDSS development and implementation is still required. Future work: Developing nursing CDSS and primary research evaluation. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; 2023. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Registration: PROSPERO [number: CRD42019147773].

Computerised decision support systems (CDSS) are software or computer-based technologies providing advice to professionals making clinical decisions ­ for example, which patients to treat first in emergency departments. CDSS improve some doctors' decisions and patients' outcomes, but we don't know if they improve nurses', midwives' and therapists' or other staff decisions and patient outcomes. Research into, and health professionals' use of, technology ­ for example, in video consultations ­ has grown since the last relevant systematic review in 2009. We systematically searched electronic databases for research measuring how well nurses, midwifes and other therapists/staff followed CDSS advice, how CDSS influence their decisions, how safe CDSS are, and their financial costs and benefits. We interviewed CDSS users and developers and some patient representatives from a general practice to help understand our findings. Of 35 relevant studies ­ from 36,106 initially found ­ most (71%) focused on nurses. Just over half (57%) involved hospital-based staff, and three-quarters (75%) were from richer countries like the USA or the UK. Research quality had not noticeably improved since 2009 and all studies were at risk of potentially misleading readers. CDSS improved care in just under half (47%) of professional behaviours, such as following hand-disinfection guidance, working out insulin doses, and sampling blood on time. Patient care ­ judged using outcomes like falls, pressure ulcers, diabetes control and triage accuracy ­ was better in 41% of the care measured. There wasn't enough evidence to judge CDSS safety or the financial costs and benefits of systems. CDSS can improve some nursing and therapist decisions and some patient outcomes. Studies mostly measure different behaviours and outcomes, making comparing them hard. Theories explaining or predicting how decision support systems might work are not used enough when designing, implementing or evaluating CDSS. More research into the financial costs and benefits of CDSS and higher-quality evidence of their effects are still needed. Whether decision support for nurses, midwives and other therapists reliably improves decision-making remains uncertain.

Exploring variation in implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. In England national guidance recommends delivery of a multifactorial falls risk assessment (MFRA) and interventions tailored to address individual falls risk factors. However, there is variation in how these practices are implemented. This study aimed to explore the variation by examining what supports or constrains delivery of MFRAs and tailored interventions in acute hospitals. METHODS: A realist review of literature was conducted with searches completed in three stages: (1) to construct hypotheses in the form of Context, Mechanism, Outcome configurations (CMOc) about how MFRAs and interventions are delivered, (2) to scope the breadth and depth of evidence available in Embase to test the CMOcs, and (3) following prioritisation of CMOcs, to refine search strategies for use in multiple databases. Citations were managed in EndNote; titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, with 10% independently screened by two reviewers. RESULTS: Two CMOcs were prioritised for testing labelled: Facilitation via MFRA tools, and Patient Participation in interventions. Analysis indicated that MFRA tools can prompt action, but the number and type of falls risk factors included in tools differ across organisations leading to variation in practice. Furthermore, the extent to which tools work as prompts is influenced by complex ward conditions such as changes in patient condition, bed swaps, and availability of falls prevention interventions. Patient participation in falls prevention interventions is more likely where patient directed messaging takes individual circumstances into account, e.g., not wanting to disturb nurses by using the call bell. However, interactions that elicit individual circumstances can be resource intensive and patients with cognitive impairment may not be able to participate despite appropriately directed messaging. CONCLUSIONS: Organisations should consider how tools can be developed in ways that better support consistent and comprehensive identification of patients' individual falls risk factors and the complex ward conditions that can disrupt how tools work as facilitators. Ward staff should be supported to deliver patient directed messaging that is informed by their individual circumstances to encourage participation in falls prevention interventions, where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020184458.

Researching nurses' use of digital technology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The adoption of digital technology by nurses accelerated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, not all nurses were familiar with the various digital systems used in their organisations and there were reports of digital technology not being fit for purpose. This article describes a service evaluation that used an online survey to obtain nurses' feedback on the digital systems used to support patient care during the pandemic. Fifty-five respondents provided details about 85 separate digital systems. The usability of these systems varied significantly across technology types, while barriers to their use included nurses' lack of digital literacy and inadequate access to IT infrastructure. However, most of the nurse respondents felt that digital technology had supported effective patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What Works Where and How for Uptake and Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Pathology: Review of Theories for a Realist Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in pathology to increase accuracy and efficiency. To date, studies of clinicians' perceptions of AI have found only moderate acceptability, suggesting the need for further research regarding how to integrate it into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine contextual factors that may support or constrain the uptake of AI in pathology. METHODS: To go beyond a simple listing of barriers and facilitators, we drew on the approach of realist evaluation and undertook a review of the literature to elicit stakeholders' theories of how, for whom, and in what circumstances AI can provide benefit in pathology. Searches were designed by an information specialist and peer-reviewed by a second information specialist. Searches were run on the arXiv.org repository, MEDLINE, and the Health Management Information Consortium, with additional searches undertaken on a range of websites to identify gray literature. In line with a realist approach, we also made use of relevant theory. Included documents were indexed in NVivo 12, using codes to capture different contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes that could affect the introduction of AI in pathology. Coded data were used to produce narrative summaries of each of the identified contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes, which were then translated into theories in the form of context-mechanism-outcome configurations. RESULTS: A total of 101 relevant documents were identified. Our analysis indicates that the benefits that can be achieved will vary according to the size and nature of the pathology department's workload and the extent to which pathologists work collaboratively; the major perceived benefit for specialist centers is in reducing workload. For uptake of AI, pathologists' trust is essential. Existing theories suggest that if pathologists are able to "make sense" of AI, engage in the adoption process, receive support in adapting their work processes, and can identify potential benefits to its introduction, it is more likely to be accepted. CONCLUSIONS: For uptake of AI in pathology, for all but the most simple quantitative tasks, measures will be required that either increase confidence in the system or provide users with an understanding of the performance of the system. For specialist centers, efforts should focus on reducing workload rather than increasing accuracy. Designers also need to give careful thought to usability and how AI is integrated into pathologists' workflow.

Strategic workforce planning in health and social care - an international perspective: A scoping review.

Effective strategic workforce planning for integrated and co-ordinated health and social care is essential if future services are to be resourced such that skill mix, clinical practice and productivity meet population health and social care needs in timely, safe and accessible ways globally. This review presents international literature to illustrate how strategic workforce planning in health and social care has been undertaken around the world with examples of planning frameworks, models and modelling approaches. The databases Business Source Premier, CINAHL, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Medline and Scopus were searched for full texts, from 2005 to 2022, detailing empirical research, models or methodologies to explain how strategic workforce planning (with at least a one-year horizon) in health and/or social care has been undertaken, yielding ultimately 101 included references. The supply/demand of a differentiated medical workforce was discussed in 25 references. Nursing and midwifery were characterised as undifferentiated labour, requiring urgent growth to meet demand. Unregistered workers were poorly represented as was the social care workforce. One reference considered planning for health and social care workers. Workforce modelling was illustrated in 66 references with predilection for quantifiable projections. Increasingly needs-based approaches were called for to better consider demography and epidemiological impacts. This review's findings advocate for whole-system needs-based approaches that consider the ecology of a co-produced health and social care workforce.

Offloading devices for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: A realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Heel pressure ulcers can cause pain, reduce mobility, lead to longer hospital stays and in severe cases can lead to sepsis, amputation, and death. Offloading boots are marketed as heel pressure ulcer prevention devices, working by removing pressure to the heel, yet there is little good quality evidence about their clinical effectiveness. Given that evidence is not guiding use of these devices, this study aims to explore, how, when, and why these devices are used in hospital settings. OBJECTIVE: To explore how offloading devices are used to prevent heel pressure ulcers, for whom and in what circumstances. METHODS: A realist evaluation was undertaken to explore the contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes that might influence how offloading devices are implemented and used in clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in hospitals. Eight Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists from across the UK (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) were interviewed. Questions sought to elicit whether, and in what ways, initial theories about the use of heel pressure ulcers fitted with interviewee's experiences. RESULTS: Thirteen initial theories were refined into three programme theories about how offloading devices are used by nurses 'proactively' to prevent heel pressure ulcers, 'reactively' to treat and minimise deterioration of early-stage pressure ulcers, and patient factors that influence how these devices are used. CONCLUSIONS: Offloading devices were used in clinical practice by all the interviewees. It was viewed that they were not suitable to be used by every patient, at every point in their inpatient journey, nor was it financially viable. However, the interviewees thought that identifying suitable 'at risk' patient groups that can maintain use of the devices could lead to proactive and cost-effective use of the devices. This understanding of the contexts and mechanisms that influence the effective use of offloading devices has implications for clinical practice and design of clinical trials of offloading devices. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: How, for whom, and in what circumstances do offloading devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers? Tissue viability nurses' perspectives.

Working together: reflections on how to make public involvement in research work.

BACKGROUND: The importance of involving members of the public in the development, implementation and dissemination of research is increasingly recognised. There have been calls to share examples of how this can be done, and this paper responds by reporting how professional and lay researchers collaborated on a research study about falls prevention among older patients in English acute hospitals. It focuses on how they worked together in ways that valued all contributions, as envisaged in the UK standards for public involvement for better health and social care research. METHODS: The paper is itself an example of working together, having been written by a team of lay and professional researchers. It draws on empirical evidence from evaluations they carried out about the extent to which the study took patient and public perspectives into account, as well as reflective statements they produced as co-authors, which, in turn, contributed to the end-of-project evaluation. RESULTS: Lay contributors' deep involvement in the research had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay contributors focusing the project on areas that matter most to patients and their families, improving the quality and relevance of outcomes by contributing to data analysis, and feeling they were 'honouring' their personal experience of the subject of study. Negative impacts included the potential for lay people to feel overwhelmed by the challenges involved in achieving the societal or organisational changes necessary to address research issues, which can cause them to question their rationale for public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes with practical recommendations for working together effectively in research. These cover the need to discuss the potential emotional impacts of such work with lay candidates during recruitment and induction and to support lay people with these impacts throughout projects; finding ways to address power imbalances and practical challenges; and tips on facilitating processes within lay groups, especially relational processes like the development of mutual trust.

Involving members of the public in all stages of research as equal partners is a powerful way to make research more relevant. This paper shares an example of such involvement, from a study about falls prevention in English hospitals. Developed by a team of lay people and professional researchers, the paper looks at how we worked together, drawing on evaluations we carried out about how the study took patient and public perspectives into account, and on personal reflections we wrote. Public involvement had a positive effect on the project and the individuals involved, but there were also difficulties. Positive impacts included lay people ensuring the study focused on what mattered most to patients and their families and feeling they had done right by their personal experience of the study's subject. Negative impacts included the potential for people to feel overwhelmed by the changes in organisations or in wider society needed to address the issues being explored by a research study, which could cause them to question why they became involved in the first place. The paper ends with practical recommendations about working together, covering things such as helping lay people with the emotional impact of involvement from the beginning to the end of projects; finding ways to ensure everybody is treated in the same way and solving practical problems; and tips on leading and supporting groups of this kind, especially with personal issues like trusting each other.

Survey of liver pathologists to assess attitudes towards digital pathology and artificial intelligence.

AIMS: A survey of members of the UK Liver Pathology Group (UKLPG) was conducted, comprising consultant histopathologists from across the UK who report liver specimens and participate in the UK National Liver Pathology External Quality Assurance scheme. The aim of this study was to understand attitudes and priorities of liver pathologists towards digital pathology and artificial intelligence (AI). METHODS: The survey was distributed to all full consultant members of the UKLPG via email. This comprised 50 questions, with 48 multiple choice questions and 2 free-text questions at the end, covering a range of topics and concepts pertaining to the use of digital pathology and AI in liver disease. RESULTS: Forty-two consultant histopathologists completed the survey, representing 36% of fully registered members of the UKLPG (42/116). Questions examining digital pathology showed respondents agreed with the utility of digital pathology for primary diagnosis 83% (34/41), second opinions 90% (37/41), research 85% (35/41) and training and education 95% (39/41). Fatty liver diseases were an area of demand for AI tools with 80% in agreement (33/41), followed by neoplastic liver diseases with 59% in agreement (24/41). Participants were concerned about AI development without pathologist involvement 73% (30/41), however, 63% (26/41) disagreed when asked whether AI would replace pathologists. CONCLUSIONS: This study outlines current interest, priorities for research and concerns around digital pathology and AI for liver pathologists. The majority of UK liver pathologists are in favour of the application of digital pathology and AI in clinical practice, research and education.

Effect of a hospital command centre on patient safety: an interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: Command centres have been piloted in some hospitals across the developed world in the last few years. Their impact on patient safety, however, has not been systematically studied. Hence, we aimed to investigate this. METHODS: This is a retrospective population-based cohort study. Participants were patients who visited Bradford Royal Infirmary Hospital and Calderdale & Huddersfield hospitals between 1 January 2018 and 31 August 2021. A five-phase, interrupted time series, linear regression analysis was used. RESULTS: After introduction of a Command Centre, while mortality and readmissions marginally improved, there was no statistically significant impact on postoperative sepsis. In the intervention hospital, when compared with the preintervention period, mortality decreased by 1.4% (95% CI 0.8% to 1.9%), 1.5% (95% CI 0.9% to 2.1%), 1.3% (95% CI 0.7% to 1.8%) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.7% to 3.4%) during successive phases of the command centre programme, including roll-in and activation of the technology and preparatory quality improvement work. However, in the control site, compared with the baseline, the weekly mortality also decreased by 2.0% (95% CI 0.9 to 3.1), 2.3% (95% CI 1.1 to 3.5), 1.3% (95% CI 0.2 to 2.4), 3.1% (95% CI 1.4 to 4.8) for the respective intervention phases. No impact on any of the indicators was observed when only the software technology part of the Command Centre was considered. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a hospital Command Centre may have a marginal positive impact on patient safety when implemented as part of a broader hospital-wide improvement programme including colocation of operations and clinical leads in a central location. However, improvement in patient safety indicators was also observed for a comparable period in the control site. Further evaluative research into the impact of hospital command centres on a broader range of patient safety and other outcomes is warranted.

How, for whom, and in what contexts will artificial intelligence be adopted in pathology? A realist interview study.

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) in pathology to improve accuracy and efficiency. Studies of clinicians' perceptions of AI have found only moderate acceptability, suggesting further research is needed regarding integration into clinical practice. This study aimed to explore stakeholders' theories concerning how and in what contexts AI is likely to become integrated into pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review provided tentative theories that were revised through a realist interview study with 20 pathologists and 5 pathology trainees. Questions sought to elicit whether, and in what ways, the tentative theories fitted with interviewees' perceptions and experiences. Analysis focused on identifying the contextual factors that may support or constrain uptake of AI in pathology. RESULTS: Interviews highlighted the importance of trust in AI, with interviewees emphasizing evaluation and the opportunity for pathologists to become familiar with AI as means for establishing trust. Interviewees expressed a desire to be involved in design and implementation of AI tools, to ensure such tools address pressing needs, but needs vary by subspecialty. Workflow integration is desired but whether AI tools should work automatically will vary according to the task and the context. CONCLUSIONS: It must not be assumed that AI tools that provide benefit in one subspecialty will provide benefit in others. Pathologists should be involved in the decision to introduce AI, with opportunity to assess strengths and weaknesses. Further research is needed concerning the evidence required to satisfy pathologists regarding the benefits of AI.

Faster than light (microscopy): superiority of digital pathology over microscopy for assessment of immunohistochemistry.

AIMS: Digital pathology offers the potential for significant benefits in diagnostic pathology, but currently the efficiency of slide viewing is a barrier to adoption. We hypothesised that presenting digital slides for simultaneous viewing of multiple sections of tissue for comparison, as in those with immunohistochemical panels, would allow pathologists to review cases more quickly. METHODS: Novel software was developed to view synchronised parallel tissue sections on a digital pathology workstation. Sixteen histopathologists reviewed three liver biopsy cases including an immunohistochemical panel using the digital microscope, and three different liver biopsy cases including an immunohistochemical panel using the light microscope. The order of cases and interface was fully counterbalanced. Time to diagnosis was recorded and mean times are presented as data approximated to a normalised distribution. RESULTS: Mean time to diagnosis was 4 min 3 s using the digital microscope and 5 min 24 s using the light microscope, saving 1 min 21 s (95% CI 16 s to 2 min 26 s; p=0.02), using the digital microscope. Overall normalised mean time to diagnosis was 85% on the digital pathology workstation compared with 115% on the microscope, a relative reduction of 26%. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate interface design, it is quicker to review immunohistochemical slides using a digital microscope than the conventional light microscope, without incurring any major diagnostic errors. As digital pathology becomes more integrated with routine clinical workflow and pathologists increase their experience of the technology, it is anticipated that other tasks will also become more time-efficient.