Search

Abstract Background Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments. Methods This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation. Results The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices. Conclusion Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

Abstract Background Recovery Colleges are a relatively recent initiative within mental health services. The first opened in 2009 in London and since then numbers have grown. They are based on principles of personal recovery in mental health, co-production between people with lived experience of mental health problems and professionals, and adult learning. Student eligibility criteria vary, but all serve people who use mental health services, with empirical evidence of benefit. Previously we developed a Recovery College fidelity measure and a preliminary change model identifying the mechanisms of action and outcomes for this group, which we refer to as service user students. The Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) study is a five-year (2020–2025) programme of research in England. The aim of RECOLLECT is to determine Recovery Colleges’ effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and identify organisational influences on fidelity and improvements in mental health outcomes. Methods RECOLLECT comprises i) a national survey of Recovery Colleges, ii) a prospective cohort study to establish the relationship between fidelity, mechanisms of action and psychosocial outcomes, iii) a prospective cohort study to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, iv) a retrospective cohort study to determine the relationship between Recovery College use and outcomes and mental health service use, and v) organisational case studies to establish the contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and outcomes. The programme has been developed with input from individuals who have lived experience of mental health problems. A Lived Experience Advisory Panel will provide input into all stages of the research. Discussion RECOLLECT will provide the first rigorous evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges in England, to inform their prioritising, commissioning, and running. The validated RECOLLECT multilevel change model will confirm the active components of Recovery Colleges. The fidelity measure and evidence about the fidelity-outcome relationship will provide an empirically-based approach to develop Recovery Colleges, to maximise benefits for students. Findings will be disseminated through the study website (researchintorecovery.com/recollect) and via national and international Recovery College networks to maximise impact, and will shape policy on how Recovery Colleges can help those with mental health problems lead empowered, meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Abstract Background Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Methods Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled. Results Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants’ attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication. Conclusions Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.

Abstract Background The implementation of strategic health system change is often complicated by informal ‘politics’ in healthcare organisations. Leadership development programmes increasingly call for the development and use of ‘political skill’ as a means for understanding and managing the politics of healthcare organisations. The primary purpose of this review is to determine how political skill contributes to the implementation of health services change, within and across organisations. The secondary purpose is to demonstrate the conceptual variations within the literature. Methods The article is based upon a narrative synthesis that included quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research papers, review articles and professional commentaries that deployed the concept of political skill (or associated terms) to describe and analyse the implementation of change in healthcare services. Results Sixty-two papers were included for review drawn from over four decades of empirically and conceptually diverse research. The literature is comprised of four distinct literatures with a lack of conceptual coherence. Within and across these domains, political skill is described as influencing health services change through five dimensions of leadership: personal performance; contextual awareness; inter-personal influence; stakeholder engagement, networks and alliances; and influence on policy processes. Conclusion There is a growing body of evidence showing how political skill can contribute to the implementation of health services change, but the evidence on explanatory processes is weak. Moreover, the conceptualisation of political skill is variable making comparative analysis difficult, with research often favouring individual-level psychological and behavioural properties over more social or group processes.

Abstract Background From late February 2020, English care homes rapidly adapted their practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to accommodating new guidelines and policies, staff had to adjust to rapid reconfiguration of services external to the home that they would normally depend upon for support. This study examined the complex interdependencies of support as staff responded to COVID-19. The aim was to inform more effective responses to the ongoing pandemic, and to improve understanding of how to work with care home staff and organisations after the pandemic has passed. Methods Ten managers of registered care homes in the East Midlands of England were interviewed by videoconference or phone about their experiences of the crisis from a structured organisational perspective. Analysis used an adapted organisational framework analysis approach with a focus on social ties and interdependencies between organisations and individuals. Results Three key groups of interdependencies were identified: care processes and practice; resources; and governance. Care home staff had to deliver care in innovative ways, making high stakes decisions in circumstances defined by: fluid ties to organisations outside the care home; multiple, sometimes conflicting, sources of expertise and information; and a sense of deprioritisation by authorities. Organisational responses to the pandemic by central government resulted in resource constraints and additional work, and sometimes impaired the ability of staff and managers to make decisions. Local communities, including businesses, third-sector organisations and individuals, were key in helping care homes overcome challenges. Care homes, rather than competing, were found to work together to provide mutual support. Resilience in the system was a consequence of dedicated and resourceful staff using existing local networks, or forging new ones, to overcome barriers to care. Conclusions This study identified how interdependency between care home organisations, the surrounding community, and key statutory and non-statutory organisations beyond their locality, shaped decision making and care delivery during the pandemic. Recognising these interdependencies, and the expertise shown by care home managers and staff as they navigate them, is key to providing effective healthcare in care homes as the pandemic progresses, and as the sector recovers afterwards.

Abstract Background The implementation of strategic health system change is often complicated by the informal politics and power of health systems, such as competing interests and resistant groups. Evidence from other industries shows that strategic leaders need to be aware of and manage such ‘organisational politics’ when implementing change, which involves developing and using forms of political ‘skill’, ‘savvy’ or ‘astuteness’. The purpose of this study is to investigate the acquisition, use and contribution of political ‘astuteness’ in the implementation of strategic health system change. Methods The qualitative study comprises four linked work packages. First, we will complete a systematic ‘review of reviews’ on the topic of political skill and astuteness, and related social science concepts, which will be used to then review the existing health services research literature to identify exemplars of political astuteness in health care systems. Second, we will carry out semi-structured biographical interviews with regional and national service leaders, and recent recipients of leadership training, to understand their acquisition and use of political astuteness. Third, we will carry out in-depth ethnographic research looking at the utilisation and contribution of political astuteness in three contemporary examples of strategic health system change. Finally, we will explore and discuss the study findings through a series of co-production workshops to inform the development and testing of new learning resources and materials for future NHS leaders. Discussion The research will produce evidence about the relatively under-researched contribution that political skill and astuteness makes in the implementation of strategic health system change. It intends to offer new understanding of these skills and capabilities that takes greater account of the wider social, cultural organisational landscape, and offers tangible lessons and case examples for service leaders. The study will inform future learning materials and processes, and create spaces for future leaders to reflect upon their political astuteness in a constructive and development way. Trial registration Researchregistery4020 [23rd April 2018].