Navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map: lessons from setting up the BATH-OUT-2 randomised controlled trial in adult social care and housing services in English local authorities.

Populations around the world are rapidly ageing and more people are living with multiple long-term conditions. There is an urgent need for evidence about high quality, cost-effective, and integrated systems of health and social care. Health research funders are now also prioritising research in adult social care and wider local authority settings, e.g. housing services.Developing the evidence base for adult social care should include implementing randomised controlled trials, where appropriate. Within the UK, the clinical trial is the established road map for evaluating interventions in the National Health Service (NHS). However, adult social care and local authorities are relatively uncharted territory for trials. BATH-OUT-2 is one of the first clinical trials currently underway within adult social care and housing adaptations services in six English local authorities. It provides an opportunity to explore how the clinical trial road map fares in these settings.Whilst setting up BATH-OUT-2, we encountered challenges with securing funding for the trial, lack of non-NHS intervention costs, using research and support costs as intended, gaining approvals, identifying additional trial sites, and including people who lack the mental capacity to provide informed consent. Overall, our experience has been like navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map. In the UK, the clinical trial road map was developed for medical settings. Its key features are integrated within the NHS landscape but have been largely absent, unfamiliar, inaccessible, or irrelevant in social care and wider local authority terrain. Navigating the set-up of a clinical trial outside the NHS has been a complicated and disorientating journey.BATH-OUT-2 highlights how local authorities generally and adult social care specifically are a relatively new and certainly different type of setting for trials. Whilst this poses a challenge for conducting trials, it also presents an opportunity to question longstanding assumptions within trials practices, reimagine the conventional clinical trial road map, and take it in new directions. As the UK research landscape moves forward and becomes better primed for randomised evaluations in local authorities, we propose several suggestions for building on recent progress and advancing trials within adult social care and across health and care systems.

Bathing Adaptations in the Homes of Older Adults (BATH-OUT-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic evaluation and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The onset of disability in bathing is particularly important for older adults as it can be rapidly followed by disability in other daily activities; this may represent a judicious time point for intervention in order to improve health, well-being and associated quality of life. An important environmental and preventative intervention is housing adaptation, but there are often lengthy waiting times for statutory provision. In this randomised controlled trial (RCT), we aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bathing adaptations compared to no adaptations and to explore the factors associated with routine and expedited implementation of bathing adaptations. METHODS: BATH-OUT-2 is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group RCT. Adults aged 60 and over who are referred to their local authority for an accessible level access shower will be randomised, using pairwise randomisation, 1:1, to receive either an expedited provision of an accessible shower via the local authority or a usual care control waiting list. Participants will be followed up for a maximum of 12 months and will receive up to four follow-ups in this duration. The primary outcome will be the participant's physical well-being, assessed by the Physical Component Summary score of the Short Form-36 (SF-36), 4 weeks after the intervention group receives the accessible shower. The secondary outcomes include the Mental Component Summary score of the SF-36, self-reported falls, health and social care resource use, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), social care-related quality of life (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)), fear of falling (Short Falls Efficacy Scale), independence in bathing (Barthel Index bathing question), independence in daily activities (Barthel Index) and perceived difficulty in bathing (0-100 scale). A mixed-methods process evaluation will comprise interviews with stakeholders and a survey of local authorities with social care responsibilities in England. DISCUSSION: The BATH-OUT-2 trial is designed so that the findings will inform future decisions regarding the provision of bathing adaptations for older adults. This trial has the potential to highlight, and then reduce, health inequalities associated with waiting times for bathing adaptations and to influence policies for older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN48563324. Prospectively registered on 09/04/2021.

Implementing early rehabilitation and mobilisation for children in UK paediatric intensive care units: the PERMIT feasibility study.

Background: Early rehabilitation and mobilisation encompass patient-tailored interventions, delivered within intensive care, but there are few studies in children and young people within paediatric intensive care units. Objectives: To explore how healthcare professionals currently practise early rehabilitation and mobilisation using qualitative and quantitative approaches; co-design the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions, with primary and secondary patient-centred outcomes; explore feasibility and acceptability of implementing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual within three paediatric intensive care units. Design: Mixed-methods feasibility with five interlinked studies (scoping review, survey, observational study, codesign workshops, feasibility study) in three phases. Setting: United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units. Participants: Children and young people aged 0-16 years remaining within paediatric intensive care on day 3, their parents/guardians and healthcare professionals. Interventions: In Phase 3, unit-wide implementation of manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation. Main outcome measures: Phase 1 observational study: prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3. Phase 3 feasibility study: acceptability of early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention; adverse events; acceptability of study design; acceptability of outcome measures. Data sources: Searched Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, PEDro, Open grey and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Review methods: Narrative synthesis. Results: In the scoping review we identified 36 full-text reports evaluating rehabilitation initiated within 7 days of paediatric intensive care unit admission, outlining non-mobility and mobility early rehabilitation and mobilisation interventions from 24 to 72 hours and delivered twice daily. With the survey, 124/191 (65%) responded from 26/29 (90%) United Kingdom paediatric intensive care units; the majority considered early rehabilitation and mobilisation a priority. The observational study followed 169 patients from 15 units; prevalence of any early rehabilitation and mobilisation on day 3 was 95.3%. We then developed a manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention informed by current evidence, experience and theory. All three sites implemented the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual successfully, recruited to target (30 patients recruited) and followed up the patients until day 30 or discharge; 21/30 parents consented to complete additional outcome measures. Limitations: The findings represent the views of National Health Service staff but may not be generalisable. We were unable to conduct workshops and interviews with children, young people and parents to support the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual development due to pandemic restrictions. Conclusions: A randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the manualised early rehabilitation and mobilisation intervention. Future work: A definitive cluster randomised trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation in paediatric intensive care requires selection of outcome measure and health economic evaluation. Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019151050. The Phase 1 observational study is registered Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04110938 (Phase 1) (registered 1 October 2019) and the Phase 3 feasibility study is registered NCT04909762 (Phase 3) (registered 2 June 2021). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/21/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Early rehabilitation and mobilisation, within the first week of intensive care admission, can improve the speed of recovery from illness or injury in adults. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether critically unwell children benefit from early rehabilitation and mobilisation. We aimed to identify which patients may benefit from early rehabilitation and mobilisation. Also, to develop and test a manual of early rehabilitation and mobilisation using the best evidence and expertise ­ called the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual. Then evaluate whether the manual could be implemented safely in paediatric intensive care units and was acceptable to staff and families. We undertook in respect of early rehabilitation and mobilisation: review of existing research; national survey of practice (124 staff); gathered information about current conduct (15 paediatric intensive care units, 169 patients); spoke to experts (18 people); developed the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual to guide paediatric intensive care unit staff; Tested the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual in three paediatric intensive care units with 30 patients; gathered feedback from healthcare professionals via weekly 'debriefs' (47), interviews (13) and surveys (118), and from parents via parent-completed questionnaires (21) and interviews (14). Despite being regarded as important, currently early rehabilitation and mobilisation practice is inconsistent, not considered 'early' enough and often focuses on low-risk activities conducted on the bed. Introducing the Paediatric Early Rehabilitation and Mobilisation during InTensive care manual as part of a trial was acceptable and feasible and helps standardise delivery to unwell children. Measuring child and parent reported outcomes was acceptable but follow-up at 30 days was incomplete. A larger trial of early rehabilitation and mobilisation, involving more paediatric intensive care units, is feasible and required to demonstrate benefit to children.

School-based allied health interventions for children and young people affected by neurodisability: a systematic evidence map.

PURPOSE: To systematically map available evidence for school-based interventions led by allied health (i.e., occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and/or speech and language therapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched for studies in pre-school, primary, secondary, or post-secondary settings, published 2004-2020. We coded study, population, and intervention characteristics. Outcomes were coded inductively, categorised, and linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. RESULTS: We included 337 studies (33 countries) in an interactive evidence map. Participants were mainly pre-school and primary-aged, including individuals with neurodisability and whole-school populations. Interventions targeted wide-ranging outcomes, including educational participation (e.g., writing, reading) and characteristics of school environments (e.g., educators' knowledge and skills, peer support). Universal, targeted, and intensive interventions were reported in 21.7%, 38.9%, and 60.2% of studies, respectively. Teachers and teaching assistants delivered interventions in 45.4% and 22.6% of studies, respectively. 43.9% of studies conducted early feasibility testing/piloting and 54.9% had ≤30 participants. Sixty-two randomised controlled trials focused on intervention evaluation or implementation. CONCLUSIONS: In the United Kingdom, future research should take forward school-based allied health interventions that relate directly to agreed research priorities. Internationally, future priorities include implementation of tiered (universal, targeted, intensive) intervention models and appropriate preparation and deployment of the education workforce. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONAllied health professionals (occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and speech and language therapists) work in schools supporting children and young people affected by neurodisability but the content, impact, and cost-effectiveness of their interventions are not well-understood.We systematically mapped the available evidence and identified that allied health school-based interventions target highly diverse health-related outcomes and wider determinants of children and young people's health, including educational participation (e.g., literacy) and characteristics of the school environment (e.g., educators' knowledge and skills).Our interactive evidence map can be used to help stakeholders prioritise the interventions most in need of further evaluation and implementation research, including tiered models of universal, targeted, and intensive allied health support.Teachers and teaching assistants play a central role in delivering allied health interventions in schools - appropriate preparation and deployment of the education workforce should therefore be a specific priority for future international allied health research.

Advancing cluster randomised trials in children's therapy: a survey of the acceptability of trial behaviours to therapists and parents.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions in children's therapy are rare. This is, in part, due to the challenges of the acceptability of common trial designs to therapists and service users. This study investigated the acceptability of participation in cluster randomised controlled trials to therapists and service users. METHODS: A national electronic survey of UK occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, service managers, and parents of children who use their services. Participants were recruited by NHS Trusts sharing a link to an online questionnaire with children's therapists in their Trust and with parents via Trust social media channels. National professional and parent networks also recruited to the survey. We aimed for a sample size of 325 therapists, 30 service managers, and 60 parents. Trial participation was operationalised as three behaviours undertaken by both therapists and parents: agreeing to take part in a trial, discussing a trial, and sharing information with a research team. Acceptability of the behaviours was measured using an online questionnaire based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability constructs: affective attitude, self-efficacy, and burden. The general acceptability of trials was measured using the acceptability constructs of intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness. Data were collected from June to September 2020. Numerical data were analysed using descriptive statistics and textual data by descriptive summary. RESULTS: A total of 345 survey responses were recorded. Following exclusions, 249 therapists and 40 parents provided data which was 69.6% (289/415) of the target sample size. It was not possible to track the number of people invited to take the survey nor those who viewed, but did not complete, the online questionnaire for calculation of response rates. A completion rate (participants who completed the last page of the survey divided by the participants who completed the first, mandatory, page of the survey) of 42.9% was achieved. Of the three specified trial behaviours, 140/249 (56.2%) therapists were least confident about agreeing to take part in a trial. Therapists (135/249, 52.6%) reported some confidence they could discuss a trial with a parent and child at an appointment. One hundred twenty of 249 (48.2%) therapists reported confidence in sharing information with a research team through questionnaires and interviews or sharing routine health data. Therapists (140/249, 56.2%) felt that taking part in the trial would take a lot of effort and resources. Support and resources, confidence with intervention allocation, and sense of control and professional autonomy over clinical practice were factors that positively affected the acceptability of trials. Of the 40 parents, twelve provided complete data. Most parents (18/40, 45%) agreed that it was clear how trials improve children's therapies and outcomes and that a cluster randomised trial made sense to them in their therapy situation (12/29, 30%). CONCLUSIONS: Using trials to evaluate therapy interventions is, in principle, acceptable to therapists, but their willingness to participate in trials is variable. The willingness to participate may be particularly influenced by their views related to the burden associated with trials, intervention allocation, and professional autonomy.

Early mobilisation and rehabilitation in the PICU: a UK survey.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the context and professional perspectives of delivering early rehabilitation and mobilisation (ERM) within UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). DESIGN: A web-based survey administered from May 2019 to August 2019. SETTING: UK PICUs. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 124 staff from 26 PICUs participated, including 22 (18%) doctors, 34 (27%) nurses, 28 (23%) physiotherapists, 19 (15%) occupational therapists and 21 (17%) were other professionals. RESULTS: Key components of participants' definitions of ERM included tailored, multidisciplinary rehabilitation packages focused on promoting recovery. Multidisciplinary involvement in initiating ERM was commonly reported. Over half of respondents favoured delivering ERM after achieving physiological stability (n=69, 56%). All age groups were considered for ERM by relevant health professionals. However, responses differed concerning the timing of initiation. Interventions considered for ERM were more likely to be delivered to patients when PICU length of stay exceeded 28 days and among patients with acquired brain injury or severe developmental delay. The most commonly identified barriers were physiological instability (81%), limited staffing (79%), sedation requirement (73%), insufficient resources and equipment (69%), lack of recognition of patient readiness (67%), patient suitability (63%), inadequate training (61%) and inadequate funding (60%). Respondents ranked reduction in PICU length of stay (74%) and improvement in psychological outcomes (73%) as the most important benefits of ERM. CONCLUSION: ERM is gaining familiarity and endorsement in UK PICUs, but significant barriers to implementation due to limited resources and variation in content and delivery of ERM persist. A standardised protocol that sets out defined ERM interventions, along with implementation support to tackle modifiable barriers, is required to ensure the delivery of high-quality ERM.

Specifying current physical therapy practice for paediatric trials: A survey of UK physical therapists.

BACKGROUND: Advancing physical therapy interventions for children and young people is a high research priority. This includes research to describe and specify the control condition, typically 'current care', for effectiveness trials. This paper aims to identify physical therapy outcomes commonly targeted, and intervention techniques and approaches commonly used, by physiotherapists working with children (aged 2-19 years) with mobility limitations in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey. Participants were recruited through the interactive Chartered Society of Physiotherapy members-only online discussion forum, the Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists, direct emails and snowball sampling within the authors' professional networks and Twitter. Data were collected using a structured online questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We received 146 responses, 95/146 (65.1%) of which were fully complete. Therapists reported targeting 367 unique outcome constructs, of which 193 (52.6%) mapped onto activities and participation (e.g. moving around using equipment, maintaining body position and walking), 158 (43.1%) on body functions (e.g. muscle strength, joint mobility and gait functions), 11 (3.0%) on body structure (e.g. muscle length) and 3 (0.8%) on environmental factors (e.g. access home environment, access school environment and family confidence). The most commonly used interventions related to postural management (115/133 of respondents, 86.4%) and exercise therapy (116/137, 84.67%) and included techniques such as 'use equipment' (118/137, 86.1%), 'instruct how to do something' (117/137, 85.4%), 'practice' (105/137, 76.6%) and 'stretch' (99/137, 72.3%). CONCLUSIONS: In designing trials, current care can be described as a combination of biomechanical and physiological techniques and approaches targeted at body functions and through that to activity and participation. Although some environmental behaviour change techniques and strategies were reported, the explicit use of these in current care appears limited.

Powered mobility interventions for very young children with mobility limitations to aid participation and positive development: the EMPoWER evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: One-fifth of all disabled children have mobility limitations. Early provision of powered mobility for very young children (aged < 5 years) is hypothesised to trigger positive developmental changes. However, the optimum age at which to introduce powered mobility is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to synthesise existing evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of powered mobility for very young children, compared with the more common practice of powered mobility provision from the age of 5 years. REVIEW METHODS: The study was planned as a mixed-methods evidence synthesis and economic modelling study. First, evidence relating to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility and anticipated outcomes of paediatric powered mobility interventions was reviewed. A convergent mixed-methods evidence synthesis was undertaken using framework synthesis, and a separate qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken using thematic synthesis. The two syntheses were subsequently compared and contrasted to develop a logic model for evaluating the outcomes of powered mobility interventions for children. Because there were insufficient published data, it was not possible to develop a robust economic model. Instead, a budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of increased powered mobility provision for very young children, using cost data from publicly available sources. DATA SOURCES: A range of bibliographic databases [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index (SCI; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index™ (SSCI; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH; Clarivate Analytics), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and OpenGrey] was systematically searched and the included studies were quality appraised. Searches were carried out in June 2018 and updated in October 2019. The date ranges searched covered from 1946 to September 2019. RESULTS: In total, 89 studies were included in the review. Only two randomised controlled trials were identified. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No conclusive evidence was found about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of powered mobility in children aged either < 5 or ≥ 5 years. However, strong support was found that powered mobility interventions have a positive impact on children's movement and mobility, and moderate support was found for the impact on children's participation, play and social interactions and on the safety outcome of accidents and pain. 'Fit' between the child, the equipment and the environment was found to be important, as were the outcomes related to a child's independence, freedom and self-expression. The evidence supported two distinct conceptualisations of the primary powered mobility outcome, movement and mobility: the former is 'movement for movement's sake' and the latter destination-focused mobility. Powered mobility should be focused on 'movement for movement's sake' in the first instance. From the budget impact analysis, it was estimated that, annually, the NHS spends £1.89M on the provision of powered mobility for very young children, which is < 2% of total wheelchair service expenditure. LIMITATIONS: The original research question could not be answered because there was a lack of appropriately powered published research. CONCLUSIONS: Early powered mobility is likely to have multiple benefits for very young children, despite the lack of robust evidence to demonstrate this. Age is not the key factor; instead, the focus should be on providing developmentally appropriate interventions and focusing on 'movement for movement's sake'. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on developing, implementing, evaluating and comparing different approaches to early powered mobility. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018096449. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The aim of this study was to find out the benefits and costs of providing very young children, aged < 5 years, with powered mobility devices. Examples of powered mobility devices are electrically powered wheelchairs and modified ride-on toys. We looked at many research papers about children and powered mobility. We found many benefits of powered mobility. We then combined all of the information to see if using powered mobility before the age of 5 years had any specific benefits for children. The evidence tells us that powered mobility has a positive effect on children's movement, and it can boost children's social interactions with other people, and their independence. Children using powered mobility were able to go to their friends by themselves, move around a play space as they wanted and take part in physical activities and games. We found that the fit between the child, the powered mobility device and the child's everyday environment was important. When the fit was not good, children experienced a lot of problems. Some children and families felt that powered mobility did not suit their needs, leading to children using a manual wheelchair instead and thereby missing out on education, social opportunities and play. Barriers to powered mobility were found in the physical environment (e.g. inaccessible buildings) and the social environment (e.g. adults supervising children too closely) and often affected children's independence. We found that the advantages and disadvantages of powered mobility were similar in younger and older children, even though the activities they took part in were different. We also found that each year the NHS spends < 2% of its wheelchair service budget on powered mobility for very young children. In conclusion, powered mobility can benefit very young children, but it requires a good fit with the child's environment.

When is audit and feedback effective in dementia care? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based care for people with dementia is a priority for patients, carers and clinicians and a policy priority. There is evidence that people with dementia do not always receive such care. Audit and feedback, also known as clinical audit, is an extensively-used intervention to improve care. However, there is uncertainty about the best way to use it. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether audit and feedback is effective for improving health professionals' care of people with dementia. To investigate whether the content and delivery of audit and feedback affects its effectiveness in the context of health professionals' care for people with dementia. DESIGN: Systematic review DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Prospero, Medline (1946-December week 1 2016), PsycInfo (1967-January 2017), Cinahl (1982-January 2017), HMIC (1979-January 2017), Embase (1974-2017 week 1) databases and the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index were searched combining terms for audit and feedback, health personnel, and dementia. REVIEW METHODS: Following screening, the data were extracted using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), and synthesised graphically using harvest plots and narratively. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Published studies of audit and feedback in dementia rarely described more than one cycle. None of the included studies had a comparison group: 12 were before and after designs and one was an interrupted time series without a comparison group. The median absolute improvement was greater than in studies beyond dementia which have used stronger designs with fewer risks of bias. Included studies demonstrated large variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst methodological and reporting limitations in the included studies hinder the ability to draw strong conclusions on the effectiveness of audit and feedback in dementia care, the large interquartile range indicates further work is needed to understand the factors which affect the effectiveness of this much-used intervention.

Family-clinician interactions in children's health services: a secondary analysis of occupational therapists' practice descriptions.

BACKGROUND: Effective family-clinician interactions are important for good health outcomes. Two types of interactions are consistently recommended: relational (e.g. listening, empathy, and respect) and participatory (e.g. shared decision-making, planning and problem-solving), but there is little specific guidance on how to implement these interactions in practice. OBJECTIVE: To identify specific, practice-based examples of relational and participatory family-clinician interactions in children's occupational therapy. DESIGN: A qualitative secondary analysis was used. The data consisted of a list of occupational therapists' self-reported practice actions (n = 217) and direct quotes describing their content and context. The practice actions were categorized into a range of relational and participatory family-centred interactions using a modified framework analysis. RESULTS: Of the 217 practice actions, the majority [121 (55.76%)] did not describe examples of therapists implementing family-clinician interactions. Of the remaining practice actions, 19 (8.76%) described 'relational' interactions (e.g. 'Listen to carer', 'Gather perspectives from others'); 47 (21.66%) described 'participatory' interactions (e.g. 'Identify the family's goals and priorities', 'Allow the family to choose'); 2 (0.92%) described both ('Take guidance from carers'); and 28 (12.9%) were excluded from the analysis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A range of relational and participatory interactions were identified. Descriptions of participatory interactions were more frequent than descriptions of relational interactions, and overall the therapists described their family-clinician interactions less frequently than their other practice actions. The specific, real-life examples of different types of interactions identified in the study can be used as a basis for reflection on practice and developing more specific guidance.

"I should have discharged him but I felt guilty": a qualitative investigation of clinicians' emotions in the context of implementing occupational therapy.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' emotions about practice are a potentially powerful yet largely overlooked factor in implementation of good-quality care. The present paper expands the current, limited evidence about clinicians' emotions by (i) describing clinician-reported examples of emotions about practice and (ii) identifying the clinical situations in which, according to clinicians, emotions emerge and influence practice. METHODS: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 25 clinicians (children's occupational therapists) were conducted across six health care organisations. Participants were asked to reflect on their practice in two recent patient cases, one that they perceived 'successful' and another 'unsuccessful'. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were analysed for emerging themes. A proportion of transcripts were independently read and coded, and the themes were validated through critical discussion. RESULTS: A key theme was clinicians' emotions, especially negative emotions including guilt, anger, worry, frustration and inadequacy. These were described in connection with situations where the clinicians perceived that (i) they failed to provide good quality care, (ii) they were unable to achieve positive health outcomes or engage the patient or (iii) there was conflict between what they were asked to do and the norms they held important. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians experience a range of negative emotions about practice. These are particularly likely to emerge in situations where clinicians perceive that their actions and practice fall short of the standards, norms or outcomes that they hold as important. The results inform the specification of emotions and emotion-triggering situations for future investigations of health care implementation.