Emergency department staff views of NHS 111 First: qualitative interview study in England.

BACKGROUND: NHS 111 is a phone and online urgent care triage and assessment system that aims to reduce UK ED demand. In 2020, 111 First was introduced to triage patients before entry to the ED and to offer direct booking for patients needing ED or urgent care into same-day arrival time slots. 111 First continues to be used post pandemic, but concerns about patient safety, delays or inequities in accessing care have been voiced. This paper examines ED and urgent care centre (UCC) staff experiences of NHS 111 First. METHOD: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with ED/UCC practitioners across England between October 2020 and July 2021 as part of a larger multimethod study examining the impact of NHS 111 online. We purposively recruited from areas with high need/demand likely to be using NHS 111 services. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded inductively by the primary researcher. We coded all items to capture experiences of 111 First within the full project coding tree and from this constructed two explanatory themes which were refined by the wider research team. RESULTS: We recruited 27 participants (10 nurses, 9 doctors and 8 administrator/managers) working in ED/UCCs serving areas with high deprivation and mixed sociodemographic profiles. Participants reported local triage/streaming systems predating 111 First continued to operate so that, despite prebooked arrival slots at the ED, all attendances were funnelled into a single queue. This was described by participants as a source of frustration for staff and patients. Interviewees perceived remote algorithm-based assessments as less robust than in-person assessments which drew on more nuanced clinical expertise. DISCUSSION: While remote preassessment of patients before they present at ED is attractive, existing triage and streaming systems based on acuity, and staff views about the superiority of clinical acumen, are likely to remain barriers to the effective use of 111 First as a demand management strategy.

Child and adolescent mental health services in a devolved healthcare system: a qualitative exploration of sustainable practices.

BACKGROUND: The transference of research evidence into routine healthcare practice remains poorly understood. This includes understanding the prerequisites of longer-term viability. The present study investigated the sustainable practices of GM i-THRIVE, a programme which reconceptualizes mental health services for children and young people (CYP) in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. We aimed to establish whether a sustainable future was likely, and to identify areas of focus to improve that likelihood. METHODS: The NHS Sustainability Model, typically completed as a questionnaire measure, was converted into interview questions. The responses of nine professionals, from a variety of roles across the CYP mental health workforce, were explored using inductive thematic framework analysis. Selected participants completed the original questionnaire. RESULTS: Five themes (communication; support; barriers to implementation; past, present, and future: the implementation journey; and the nuances of GM i-THRIVE) and 21 subthemes formed the final thematic framework. Relationships with senior leaders and with colleagues across the workforce were seen as important. Leaders' roles in providing meaning and fit were emphasized. Whilst training delivered the programme's aims well, monitoring its dissemination was challenging. Widespread issues with dedicating sufficient time to implementation were raised. The flexibility of the programme, which can be applied in multiple ways, was discussed positively. This flexibility links to the idea of GM i-THRIVE as a mindset change, and the uniqueness of this style of intervention was discussed. To varying degrees, themes were supported by responses to the quantitative measure, although several limitations to the use of the questionnaire were discovered. Consequently, they were used to infer conclusions to a lesser degree than originally intended. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals involved with GM i-THRIVE reported many elements that indicate a positive future for the programme. However, they suggested that more attention should be given to embedding the core concepts of the model at the current stage of implementation. Limitations relating to its use within our study are discussed, but we conclude that the NHS Sustainability Model is a suitable way of guiding qualitative implementation research. It is especially valuable for localized interventions. The constraints of our small sample size on transferability are considered.