Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study.

Background: There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved. Objectives: To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement. Design: A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases. Setting: National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2). Participants: We completed n = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families. Results: The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced. Limitations: Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups. Conclusions: We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines. 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: 17/99/85) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

This study describes the experiences of families and healthcare professionals involved in incidents in NHS maternity care. The incidents caused harm-like injury or death to the baby or woman. We wanted to know whether services involved families in investigations and reviews and how this was done, what worked well, what did not work well and why. To do this, we first looked at what had already been written about 'open disclosure' or OD. Open disclosure is when the NHS admits to families that the care they provided has directly caused harm. After open disclosure occurs, families should be involved in making sure that the NHS learns so it can deliver better care for families in the future. In our reading, we found that families want a meaningful apology, to be involved in reviews or investigations, to know what happened to their loved one, to be cared for by knowledgeable doctors and midwives who are supported in providing open disclosure and to know things have changed because of what happened. Recommendations for involving families in open disclosure have improved, but there is still work to be done to make sure families are involved. Next, we talked to over 100 healthcare professionals involved in government policy for open disclosure in maternity services and 27 families who experienced harm. We spent 9 months observing the work of clinicians at three maternity services to watch open disclosure. We shared early findings with families, doctors, midwives and managers, and included their views. We found that services need to provide dedicated time, education and emotional support for staff who provide open disclosure. Services need to ensure that families have ongoing support and better communication about incidents. Finally, families must be involved in the review process if they want to be with their experiences reflected in reports and kept informed of ongoing improvements.

Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence.

BACKGROUND: Open Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts. METHODS: Realist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified. RESULTS: After realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.

Investigation of the critical factors required to improve the disclosure and discussion of harm with affected women and families: a study protocol for a qualitative, realist study in NHS maternity services (the DISCERN study).

Patients and families are entitled to an open disclosure and discussion of healthcare incidents affecting them. This reduces distress and contributes to learning for safety improvement. Complex barriers prevent effective disclosure and continue in the English NHS, despite a legal duty of candour. NHS maternity services are the focus of significant efforts to improve this. There is limited understanding of how, and to what effect, they are achieving this. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 27-month, three-phased realist evaluation identifying the critical factors contributing to improvements in the disclosure and discussion of incidents with affected families. The evaluation asks 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, in why respects and why?'.Phase 1: establish working hypotheses of key factors and outcomes of interventions improving disclosure and discussion, by realist literature review and in-depth realist interviews with key stakeholders (n=approximately 20]Phase 2: refine or overturn hypotheses, by ethnographic case-study analysis using triangulated qualitative methods (non-participant observation, interviews (n=12) and documentary analysis) in up to 4 purposively sampled NHS trusts.Phase 3: consider hypotheses and design outputs during seven interpretive forums. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Phase 1 study approval by King's College London's Ethics Panel (BDMRESC 22033) and National Research Ethical Approval for Phases 2-3 (IRASID:262197) (CAG:20/CAG/0121) (REC:20/LO/1152). Study sponsorship by King's College London (HS&DR 17/99/85).Findings to be disseminated through tailored management briefings; clinician and family guidance (written and video); lay summaries, academic papers, and report with outputs tailored to maximise academic and societal impact. Views of women/family groups are represented throughout.

Intervention in childbirth: should we allow women to choose?

The issue of whether women should be able to choose to give birth by caesarean section in the absence of pregnancy complications remains a controversial topic. To explore the issues and allow the public the opportunity to voice their views, academics at Bournemouth University organised a public debate on the pros and cons of allowing women free choice with regard to intervention. Two teams, each with a well-known user representative, an experienced practitioner and an academic, debated the motion: "This house believes that women should be able to choose caesarean section on demand." This paper reports the debate and the public vote on the motion.