Search

Background High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it. Methods This UK- wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free- text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system- level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers. Findings Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/ stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person- centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety. Conclusions This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical tools for use in practice--such as medicine reconciliation charts, diagnosis support tools and track- and- trigger charts--are endemic in healthcare, but relatively little attention is given to how to optimise their design. User- centred design approaches and co- design principles offer potential for improving usability and acceptability of clinical tools, but limited practical guidance is currently available. We propose a framework (FRamework for co- dESign of Clinical practice tOols or 'FRESCO') offering practical guidance based on user- centred methods and co- design principles, organised in five steps: (1) establish a multidisciplinary advisory group; (2) develop initial drafts of the prototype; (3) conduct think- aloud usability evaluations; (4) test in clinical simulations; (5) generate a final prototype informed by workshops. We applied the framework in a case study to support co- design of a prototype track- and- trigger chart for detecting and responding to possible fetal deterioration during labour. This started with establishing an advisory group of 22 members with varied expertise. Two initial draft prototypes were developed--one based on a version produced by national bodies, and the other with similar content but designed using human factors principles. Think- aloud usability evaluations of these prototypes were conducted with 15 professionals, and the findings used to inform co-design of an improved draft prototype. This was tested with 52 maternity professionals from five maternity units through clinical simulations. Analysis of these simulations and six workshops were used to co-design the final prototype to the point of readiness for large- scale testing. By codifying existing methods and principles into a single framework, FRESCO supported mobilisation of the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to co- design a prototype track- and- trigger chart in an area of pressing service need. Subject to further evaluation, the framework has potential for application beyond the area of clinical practice in which it was applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Problems in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) remain a major area of preventable harm. Poor understanding of the range of influences on safety may have hindered improvement. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we sought to characterise the everyday practice of CTG monitoring and the work systems within which it takes place, with the goal of identifying potential sources of risk. Methods Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) experts and social scientists conducted 325 hours of observations and 23 interviews in three maternity units in the UK, focusing on how CTG tasks were undertaken, the influences on this work and the cultural and organisational features of work settings. HF/E analysis was based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. Social science analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results CTG monitoring can be understood as a complex sociotechnical activity, with tasks, people, tools and technology, and organisational and external factors all combining to affect safety. Fetal heart rate patterns need to be recorded and interpreted correctly. Systems are also required for seeking the opinions of others, determining whether the situation warrants concern, escalating concerns and mobilising response. These processes may be inadequately designed or function suboptimally, and may be further complicated by staffing issues, equipment and ergonomics issues, and competing and frequently changing clinical guidelines. Practice may also be affected by variable standards and workflows, variations in clinical competence, teamwork and situation awareness, and the ability to communicate concerns freely. Conclusions CTG monitoring is an inherently collective and sociotechnical practice. Improving it will require accounting for complex system interdependencies, rather than focusing solely on discrete factors such as individual technical proficiency in interpreting traces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are a complex and underserved group. They are commonly older patients with multiple comorbidities, who rely on multiple healthcare services. Regional variation in services and resourcing has been highlighted as a problem in heart failure care, with few teams bridging the interface between the community and secondary care. These reports conflict with policy goals to improve coordination of care and dissolve boundaries between specialist services and the community. Aim To explore how care is coordinated for patients with HFpEF, with a focus on the interface between primary care and specialist services in England. Methods We applied systems thinking methodology to examine the relationship between work- as- imagined and work- as- done for coordination of care for patients with HFpEF . We analysed clinical guidelines in conjunction with a secondary applied thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals caring for patients with HFpEF including general practitioners, specialist nurses and cardiologists and patients with HFpEF themselves (n=41). Systems Thinking for Everyday Work principles provided a sensitising theoretical framework to facilitate a deeper understanding of how these data illustrate a complex health system and where opportunities for improvement interventions may lie. Results Three themes (working with complexity, information transfer and working relationships) were identified to explain variability between work- as- imagined and work- as- done. Participants raised educational needs, challenging work conditions, issues with information transfer systems and organisational structures poorly aligned with patient needs. Conclusions There are multiple challenges that affect coordination of care for patients with HFpEF. Findings from this study illuminate the complexity in coordination of care practices and have implications for future interventional work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]