Search

Objective: Although Ireland has one of the highest levels of well‐being in Europe, having a health condition has been found to have a direct negative impact. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current situation and the experiences of patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a rare genetic skin disease, and their relatives living in Ireland, with a focus on burdens and helpful practices. Methods and Measures: In a mixed‐methods design, a series of standardised questionnaires were combined with open‐ended questions. Via an online survey, data from n = 59 EB patients and relatives of EB patients living in Ireland were collected. Results: EB affects both the patients and their relatives. Burdens were found in relation to the visibility of EB, the degree of severity, the current health status, reduced mobility, the financial impact of EB, the psychosocial impact and personal and social resources. The paper also analyses existing resources and highlights opportunities for support and needs of improvement. Conclusion: Quality of life with EB is influenced by somatic symptoms and the psychosocial burden. Individual helpful practices in dealing with this rare disease can be considered as mediators, but they need to be supported by structural and healthcare improvements. Patient or Public Contribution: The perspective of EB patients, their relatives and EB experts were taken into account in the development of the study design via two feedback loops with the EB patient organisations DEBRA Ireland and DEBRA Austria. The design was adapted accordingly. Additionally, by including open‐ended questions, patients and relatives could contribute their individual perspectives and add insights into their lives with EB that might not have been captured with the structured online survey alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with Parkinson's disease (PD) do not always access specialist outpatient services in a timely manner in Ireland. The perspectives of people living with PD, relating to service access, are largely absent in the existing literature. Aim: To explore experiences of PD service access for people living with PD, using a qualitative approach. Methods: Purposive maximum variation sampling was used. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 service users, including people with PD (n = 22) and supporting carers (n = 3). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Interviews ranged in duration from 30 to 90 min. Data were managed in NVivo 12 and interpreted inductively using thematic analysis. The researchers were reflexive throughout the research process. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was employed to maximise transparency. Results: The findings highlight several key barriers to and facilitators of equitable and timely service access. Three key themes were identified comprising experiences of PD service access including 'geographical inequity', 'discriminatory practices', and 'public and private system deficits'. Together, these themes illustrate how a two‐tiered and under‐resourced health system lacks capacity, in terms of infrastructure and workforce, to meet PD needs for both public and private patients in Ireland. Conclusions: These findings point to problems for PD care, relating to (i) how the health system is structured, (ii) the under‐provision and under‐resourcing of specialist outpatient PD services, including medical, nursing, and multidisciplinary posts, and (iii) insufficient PD awareness education and training across health settings. The findings also show that telemedicine can provide opportunities for making access to certain aspects of PD care more flexible and equitable, but the feasibility and acceptability of technology‐enabled care must be assessed on an individual basis. Implications for policy, practice and research are discussed. Patient or Public Contribution: The design and conduct of this study were supported by an expert advisory group (EAG) of 10 co‐researchers living with PD. The EAG reviewed the interview schedule and the protocol for this study and provided detailed feedback from their perspective, to improve the methods, including the interview approach. The group also reviewed the findings of the study and contributed their insights on the meaning of the findings, which fed into this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critical care bed capacity per capita in Ireland is among the lowest in Europe. The COVID‐19 pandemic has put additional strain on an over‐stretched healthcare system. COVID‐19 community assessment hubs (CAHs) were established to prevent unnecessary admission to acute hospitals and to reduce infection spread. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of CAHs and identify how the service might be improved or adapted for possible future use. Design: This was a mixed methods study, incorporating co‐design with clinical stakeholders. Data collection was via an online survey and semistructured telephone interviews with staff and patients conducted between January and May 2021. Setting and participants: Thirty‐one patients completed the survey and nine were interviewed. Twenty interviews were conducted with staff. Results: The findings suggest that the CAH model was successful in providing a dedicated pathway for assessing patients with COVID‐19 symptoms, whilst mitigating the risk of infection. Patients were particularly positive about the timely, comprehensive and holistic care they received, as well as the accessibility of the clinics and the friendly attitudes of the staff. Staff welcomed the training and clinical protocols which contributed to their feelings of safety and competency in delivering care to this cohort of patients. They also highlighted the benefits of working in a multidisciplinary environment. Both staff and patients felt that the hubs could be repurposed for alternative use, including the treatment of chronic diseases. Discussion: This study describes staff and patients' experiences of these hubs. An unexpected outcome of this study is its demonstration of the true value of effective multidisciplinary working, not only for the staff who were deployed to this service but also for the patients in receipt of care in these hubs. Conclusion: This multidisciplinary patient‐centred service may provide a useful model for the delivery of other services currently delivered in hospital settings. Patient or Public Contribution: An earlier phase of this study involved interviews with COVID‐19‐positive patients on a remote monitoring programme. The data informed this phase. Several of the authors had worked in the CAHs and provided valuable input into the design of the staff and patient interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Modifiable factors such as substance use, lack of attendance at antenatal care, overweight or obesity and sleeping position are associated with a higher risk of stillbirth. This qualitative study aimed to explore women's experiences of modifiable factors during pregnancy and their awareness of stillbirth. Methods: Purposive sampling was implemented by hospital staff in a large tertiary maternity hospital in Ireland between November 2020 and March 2021. Women were approached during their stay in the hospital and were invited to participate in a semistructured interview 3–5 months later. Eligible women were primiparous, >18 years of age and had an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. Eighteen women who consented to be followed up were interviewed at 3–5 months postpartum. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Four themes were identified: attitudes towards behaviour change, awareness regarding stillbirth and risk factors, the silence around stillbirth and risks, and attitudes towards receiving information about stillbirth. Women spoke about behaviour change in terms of outcomes, and most changes (e.g., ceasing alcohol consumption) were perceived as easy to manage. Awareness of stillbirth was limited among the women interviewed, and the association between risk behaviours and stillbirth was not known by any woman. Results suggest that there is a silence around stillbirth, including in antenatal care, which hinders information provision. However, most women highlighted the value of receiving information and extra education about modifiable risk factors and stillbirth. Conclusion: There is a general lack of understanding of the link between behavioural risk factors and potential pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth. Providing further information to women about stillbirth and providing additional support with behaviour change might contribute to enhancing preventive efforts. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients were involved in this study by providing their experiences of antenatal care which were used as primary data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]