Search

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) have faced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these arising out of their social positions. Existing literature explicating these challenges (e.g., lack of appropriate PPE, redeployment, understaffing) have highlighted inequities in how these have been experienced by HCWs based on ethnicity, gender or, job role. In this paper, we move a step ahead and examine how the intersection of these social positions have impacted HCWs' experiences of challenges during the pandemic. Methods: We collected qualitative data, using interviews and focus groups, from 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, gender, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK) between December 2020 and July 2021. Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or by telephone, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a hybrid thematic analytical approach integrating inductive data-driven codes with deductive ones informed by an intersectional framework was adopted to analyse the transcripts. Results: Thematic analysis of transcripts identified disempowerment, disadvantage and, discrimination as the three main themes around which HCWs' experiences of challenges were centred, based on their intersecting identities (e.g., ethnicity gender, and/or migration status). Our analysis also acknowledges that disadvantages faced by HCWs were linked to systemic and structural factors at the micro, meso and macro ecosystemic levels. This merging of analysis which is grounded in intersectionality and considers the ecosystemic levels has been termed as 'intrasectionalism'. Discussion: Our research demonstrates how an intrasectional lens can help better understand how different forms of mutually reinforcing inequities exist at all levels within the healthcare workforce and how these impact HCWs from certain backgrounds who face greater disadvantage, discrimination and disempowerment, particularly during times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: End-of-life (EoL) care volunteers in hospitals are a novel approach to support patients and their close ones. The iLIVE Volunteer Study supported hospital volunteer coordinators from five European countries to design and implement an EoL care volunteer service on general wards in their hospitals. This study aimed to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EoL care volunteer services in the five hospitals. Methods: Volunteer coordinators (VCs) from the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES) and United Kingdom (UK) participated in a focus group interview and subsequent in-depth one-to-one interviews. A theory-inspired framework based on the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for data collection and analysis. Results from the focus group were depicted in radar charts per hospital. Results: Barriers across all hospitals were the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the implementation process, and the lack of recognition of the added value of EoL care volunteers by hospital staff. Site-specific barriers were struggles with promoting the service in a highly structured setting with many stakeholders (NL), negative views among nurses on hospital volunteering (NL, NO), a lack of support from healthcare professionals and the management (SI, ES), and uncertainty about their role in implementation among VCs (ES). Site-specific facilitators were training of volunteers (NO, SI, NL), involving volunteers in promoting the service (NO), and education and awareness for healthcare professionals about the role and boundaries of volunteers (UK). Conclusion: Establishing a comprehensive EoL care volunteer service for patients in non-specialist palliative care wards involves multiple considerations including training, creating awareness and ensuring management support. Implementation requires involvement of stakeholders in a way that enables medical EoL care and volunteering to co-exist. Further research is needed to explore how trust and equal partnerships between volunteers and professional staff can be built and sustained. Trial registration: NCT04678310. Registered 21/12/2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The implementation of a complex intervention is heavily influenced by individual context. Variation in implementation and tailoring of the intervention to the particular context will occur, even in a trial setting. It is recognised that in trials, evaluating the process of implementation of a complex intervention is important, yet process evaluation methods are rarely reported. The WAVES study is a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an obesity prevention intervention programme targeting children aged 6–7 years, delivered by teachers in primary schools across the West Midlands, UK. The intervention promoted activities encouraging physical activity and healthy eating. This paper presents the methods used to assess implementation of the intervention. Methods. Previous literature was used to identify the dimensions of intervention process and implementation to be assessed, including adherence, exposure, quality of delivery, participant responsiveness, context, and programme differentiation. Results. Multiple methods and tools were developed to capture information on all these dimensions. These included observations, logbooks, qualitative evaluation, questionnaires and research team reflection. Discussion. Data collection posed several challenges, predominantly when relying on teachers to complete paperwork, which they saw as burdensome on top of their teaching responsibilities. However, the use of multiple methods helped to ensure data on each dimension, where possible, was collected using more than one method. This also allowed for triangulation of the findings when several data sources on any one dimension were available. Conclusions. We have reported a comprehensive approach to the assessment of the implementation and processes of a complex childhood obesity prevention intervention within a cluster randomised controlled trial. These approaches can be transferred and adapted for use in other complex intervention trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring uses electroencephalographic data as an indicator of patients' consciousness level. This technology might be a useful adjunct to clinical observation when titrating sedative medications for palliative care patients. However, the use of BIS in palliative care generally, and in the UK in particular, is under-researched. A key area is this technology's acceptability for palliative care service users. Ahead of trialling BIS in practice, and in order to ascertain whether such a trial would be reasonable, we conducted a study to explore UK palliative care patients' and relatives' perceptions of the technology, including whether they thought its use in palliative care practice would be acceptable. Methods: A qualitative exploration was undertaken. Participants were recruited through a UK hospice. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted with separate groups of palliative care patients, relatives of current patients, and bereaved relatives. We explored their views on acceptability of using BIS with palliative care patients, and analysed their responses following the five key stages of the Framework method. Results: We recruited 25 participants. There were ten current hospice patients in three focus groups, four relatives of current patients in one focus group and one individual interview, and eleven bereaved relatives in three focus groups and two individual interviews. Our study participants considered BIS acceptable for monitoring palliative care patients' consciousness levels, and that it might be of use in end-of-life care, provided that it was additional to (rather than a replacement of) usual care, and patients and/or family members were involved in decisions about its use. Participants also noted that BIS, while possibly obtrusive, is not invasive, with some seeing it as equivalent to wearable technological devices such as activity watches. Conclusions: Participants considered BIS technology might be of benefit to palliative care as a non-intrusive means of assisting clinical assessment and decision-making at the end of life, and concluded that it would therefore be acceptable to trial the technology with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The place of opioids in the management of chronic, non-cancer pain is limited. Even so their use is escalating, leading to concerns that patients are prescribed strong opioids inappropriately and alternatives to medication are under-used. We aimed to understand the processes which bring about and perpetuate long-term prescribing of opioids for chronic, non-cancer pain. Methods: We held semi-structured interviews with patients and focus groups with general practitioners (GPs). Participants included 23 patients currently prescribed long-term opioids and 15 GPs from Leeds and Bradford, United Kingdom (UK). We used a grounded approach to the analysis of transcripts. Results: Patients are driven by the needs for pain relief, explanation, and improvement or maintenance of quality of life. GPs' responses are shaped by how UK general practice is organised, available therapeutic choices and their expertise in managing chronic pain, especially when facing diagnostic uncertainty or when their own approach is at odds with the patient's wishes. Four features of the resulting transaction between patients and doctors influence prescribing: lack of clarity of strategy, including the risk of any plans being subverted by urgent demands; lack of certainty about locus of control in decision-making, especially in relation to prescribing; continuity in the doctor-patient relationship; and mutuality and trust. Conclusions: Problematic prescribing occurs when patients experience repeated consultations that do not meet their needs and GPs feel unable to negotiate alternative approaches to treatment. Therapeutic short-termism is perpetuated by inconsistent clinical encounters and the absence of mutually-agreed formulations of underlying problems and plans of action. Apart from commissioning improved access to appropriate specialist services, general practices should also consider how they manage problematic opioid prescribing and be prepared to set boundaries with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]