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: Healthcare systems are operating under substantial pressures, and often simply cannot provide the standard of care they aspire to within the available resources. Organisations, managers, and individual clinicians make constant adaptations in response to these pressures, which are typically improvised, highly variable and not coordinated across clinical teams. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe the types of everyday pressures experienced by surgical teams and the adaptive strategies they use to respond to these pressures. Methods: We conducted interviews with 20 senior multidisciplinary healthcare professionals from surgical teams in four major hospitals in the United Kingdom. The interviews explored the types of everyday pressures staff were experiencing, the strategies they use to adapt, and how these strategies might be taught to others. Results: The primary pressures described by senior clinicians in surgery were increased numbers and complexity of patients alongside shortages in staff, theatre space and post-surgical beds. These pressures led to more difficult working conditions (e.g. high workloads) and problems with system functioning such as patient flow and cancellation of lists. Strategies for responding to these pressures were categorised into increasing or flexing resources, controlling and prioritising patient demand and strategies for managing the workload (scheduling for efficiency, communication and coordination, leadership, and teamwork strategies). Conclusions: Teams are deploying a range of strategies and making adaptations to the way care is delivered. These findings could be used as the basis for training programmes for surgical teams to develop coordinated strategies for adapting under pressure and to assess the impact of different combinations of strategies on patient safety and surgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The study aimed to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs), nurses and physiotherapists towards extending the role of sickness certification beyond the medical profession in primary care. Methods Fifteen GPs, seven nurses and six physiotherapists were selected to achieve varied respondent characteristics including sex, geographical location, service duration and post-graduate specialist training. Constant-comparative qualitative analysis of data from 28 semi-structured telephone interviews was undertaken. Results The majority of respondents supported the extended role concept; however members of each professional group also rejected the notion. Respondents employed four different legitimacy claims to justify their views and define their occupational boundaries in relation to sickness certification practice. Condition-specific legitimacy, the ability to adopt a holistic approach to sickness certification, system efficiency and control-related arguments were used to different degrees by each occupation. Practical suggestions for the extension of the sickness certification role beyond the medical profession are underpinned by the sociological theory of professional identity. Conclusions Extending the authority to certify sickness absence beyond the medical profession is not simply a matter of addressing practical and organisational obstacles. There is also a need to consider the impact on, and preferences of, the specific occupations and their respective boundary claims. This paper explores the implications of extending the sick certification role beyond general practice. We conclude that the main policy challenge of such a move is to a) persuade GPs to relinquish this role (or to share it with other professions), and b) to understand the 'boundary work' involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]