Search

Background: Dominant conceptualisations of access to health care are limited, framed in terms of speed and supply. The Candidacy Framework offers a more comprehensive approach, identifying diverse influences on how access is accomplished. Aim: To characterise how the Candidacy Framework can explain access to general practice — an increasingly fraught area of public debate and policy. Design and setting: Qualitative review guided by the principles of critical interpretive synthesis. Method: We conducted a literature review using an author-led approach, involving iterative analytically guided searches. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they related to the context of general practice, without geographical or time limitations. Key themes relating to access to general practice were extracted and synthesised using the Candidacy Framework. Results: A total of 229 articles were included in the final synthesis. The seven features identified in the original Candidacy Framework are highly salient to general practice. Using the lens of candidacy demonstrates that access to general practice is subject to multiple influences that are highly dynamic, contingent, and subject to constant negotiation. These influences are socioeconomically and institutionally patterned, creating risks to access for some groups. This analysis enables understanding of the barriers to access that may exist, even though general practice in the UK is free at the point of care, but also demonstrates that a Candidacy Framework specific to this setting is needed. Conclusion: The Candidacy Framework has considerable value as a way of understanding access to general practice, offering new insights for policy and practice. The original framework would benefit from further customisation for the distinctive setting of general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: System problems, known as operational failures, can greatly affect the work of GPs, with negative consequences for patient and professional experience, efficiency, and effectiveness. Many operational failures are tractable to improvement, but which ones should be prioritised is less clear. Aim: To build consensus among GPs and patients on the operational failures that should be prioritised to improve NHS general practice. Design and setting: Two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online among NHS GPs and patients in several regions across England. Method: Between February and October 2021, two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online: one with NHS GPs, and a subsequent exercise with patients. Over two rounds, GPs rated the importance of a list of operational failures (n = 45) that had been compiled using existing evidence. The resulting shortlist was presented to patients for rating over two rounds. Data were analysed using median scores and interquartile ranges. Consensus was defined as 80% of responses falling within one value below and above the median. Results: Sixty-two GPs responded to the first Delphi exercise, and 53.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. This exercise yielded consensus on 14 failures as a priority for improvement, which were presented to patients. Thirty-seven patients responded to the first patient Delphi exercise, and 89.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. Patients identified 13 failures as priorities. The highest scoring failures included inaccuracies in patients' medical notes, missing test results, and difficulties referring patients to other providers because of problems with referral forms. Conclusion: This study identified the highest-priority operational failures in general practice according to GPs and patients, and indicates where improvement efforts relating to operational failures in general practice should be focused. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Operational failures are system-level errors in the supply of information, equipment, and materials to health care personnel. We aimed to review and synthesize the research literature to determine how operational failures in primary care affect the work of primary care physicians. METHODS We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis. We searched 7 databases for papers published in English from database inception until October 2017 for primary research of any design that addressed problems interfering with primary care physicians' work. All potentially eligible titles/abstracts were screened by 1 reviewer; 30% were subject to second screening. We conducted an iterative critique, analysis, and synthesis of included studies. RESULTS Our search retrieved 8,544 unique citations. Though no paper explicitly referred to 'operational failures,' we identified 95 papers that conformed to our general definition. The included studies show a gap between what physicians perceived they should be doing and what they were doing, which was strongly linked to operational failures--including those relating to technology, information, and coordination--over which physicians often had limited control. Operational failures actively configured physicians' work by requiring significant compensatory labor to deliver the goals of care. This labor was typically unaccounted for in scheduling or reward systems and had adverse consequences for physician and patient experience. CONCLUSIONS Primary care physicians' efforts to compensate for suboptimal work systems are often concealed, risking an incomplete picture of the work they do and problems they routinely face. Future research must identify which operational failures are highest impact and tractable to improvement. Key words: primary care; organization and administration; organizational efficiency; operations research; review, INTRODUCTION High-quality health care depends on well-functioning operational systems that ensure that what is required to meet patient needs is in the right place at the right time. (1) Operational [...]

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]