Search

The unprecedented public health crisis of the Covid‐19 pandemic resulted in a significant challenge to the delivery of healthcare that has rarely been experienced before. The stress already faced by healthcare staff working in the National Health Service (NHS) has been further exacerbated during Covid‐19, putting them at risk of adverse mental health outcomes. Through the lens of clinical psychologists who had provided support to frontline healthcare staff during the Covid‐19 pandemic, this study aimed to better understand the stressors and uplifts healthcare staff experienced during Covid‐19, the impact of these on the wellbeing of staff and patient care, and to examine the support needed to deal with the impact of a crisis. A qualitative study design using a combination of diaries followed by semi‐structured interviews was utilised. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. The following five themes represented the stressors and uplifts experienced by NHS frontline healthcare staff during Covid‐19, the impact on staff wellbeing and patient care: facing change; risks of working in the NHS environment; transcending the negatives; challenging professional values and haunted by patient deaths. The findings also highlight the importance of providing psychological support and suggest the need to continue to provide this support service to help NHS staff manage through subsequent waves of the pandemic. These findings can contribute towards both the management of the current Covid‐19 pandemic and other similar crises in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care physicians are particularly prone to high levels of burnout and poor well-being. Despite this, no qualitative studies have specifically investigated the best ways to improve well-being and prevent burnout in primary care physicians. Previous interventions within primary care have been person-oriented and mainly focused on mindfulness, but there has been no prior research on whether general practitioners (GPs) deem this to be the best approach.Objectives: To explore strategies that could improve GP well-being and reduce or prevent burnout, based on GP perceptions of the workplace factors that affect their levels of well-being and burnout.Methods: Five focus groups were conducted, with 25 GPs (locums, salaried, trainees, and partners) in the UK, between September 2015 and February 2016. Focus groups took place in GP practices and private meeting rooms. Discussions were centered on the workplace factors that they perceived to influence their well-being, along with strategies that they use either personally, or as a practice, to try and prevent burnout. Furthermore, strategies that could feasibly be implemented by individuals and practices to improve well-being, as well as changes that are needed by groups or organizations that are external to their practice (e.g., the government) to improve the working conditions, were explored. Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts.Results: Based on the contributors to burnout and workplace well-being that the participants identified, the following feasible strategies were suggested: compulsory daily coffee breaks, increasing self- and organizational awareness of the risks of burnout and mentoring or buddy systems. System-level organizational changes were voiced as vital, however, to improve the well-being of all primary care physicians. Increasing resources seemed to be the ideal solution, to allow for more administrative staff and GPs.Conclusion: These strategies merit further consideration by researchers, physicians, healthcare organizations and policy makers both in the UK and beyond. Failure to do so may result in healthcare staff becoming even more burntout, potentially leading to a loss of doctors from the workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators.Methods: We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis.Results: Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators.Conclusions: The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study had two aims—to assess the components considered important for patient involvement in diagnosing cancer earlier in primary care and to assess the acceptability, feasibility, cost and burden of three safety‐netting interventions in terms of their potential to become a sustainable component of standard care and improve diagnostic outcomes for cancer in a primary care setting. Method: Fifteen interviews were conducted with patients and GPs/Nurse Practitioners. Findings were fed back at a workshop with 18 stakeholders who helped to conceptualise an intervention. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Stakeholder discussions were captured through group feedback sessions. Results: Three key themes around stakeholders' views on patient involvement emerged from the interviews. These were keeping the door open, roles and responsibilities and fear of cancer. Interview findings and workshop feedback identified the intervention should include a verbal discussion and plan, written information and a patient prompt option. Conclusion: Patient involvement in diagnosing cancer in primary care is considered acceptable to patients and HCPs. Factors that facilitate or hinder involvement have been identified. Components deemed important in a safety‐netting intervention, and potential costs and benefits were established. This knowledge can direct future research and the development of safety‐netting interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Length of hospital inpatient stays have reduced. This benefits patients, who prefer to be at home, and hospitals, which can treat more people when stays are shorter. Patients may, however, leave hospital sicker, with ongoing care needs. The transition period from hospital to home can be risky, particularly for older patients with complex health and social needs. Improving patient experience, especially through greater patient involvement, may improve outcomes for patients and is a key indicator of care quality and safety. In this research, we aim to: capture the experiences of older patients and their families during the transition from hospital to home, and identify opportunities for greater patient involvement in care, particularly where this contributes to greater individual-level and organisational-level resilience., Methods and Analysis: A 'focused ethnography' comprising observations, 'Go-Along' and semistructured interviews will be used to capture patient and carer experiences during different points in the care transition from admission to 90 days after discharge. We will recruit 30 patients and their carers from six hospital departments across two National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. Analysis of observations and interviews will use a framework approach to identify themes to understand the experience of transitions and generate ideas about how patients could be more actively involved in their care. This will include exploring what 'good' care at transitions looks like and seeking out examples of success, as well as recommendations for improvement., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was received from the NHS Research Ethics Committee in Wales. The research findings will add to a growing body of knowledge about patient experience of transitions, in particular providing insight into the experiences of patients and carers throughout the transitions process, in 'real time'. Importantly, the data will be used to inform the development of a patient-centred intervention to improve the quality and safety of transitions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Healthcare professionals work in emotionally charged settings; yet, little is known about the role of emotion in ensuring safe patient care. This article presents current knowledge in this field, drawing upon psychological approaches and evidence from clinical settings. We explore the emotions that health professionals experience in relation to making a medical error and describe the impact on healthcare professionals and on their professional and patient relationships. We also explore how positive and negative emotions can contribute to clinical decision making and affect responses to clinical situations. Evidence to date suggests that emotion plays an integral role in patient safety. Implications for training, practice and research are discussed in addition to strategies to facilitate health services to understand and respond to the influence of emotion in clinical practice., (© The Royal Society of Medicine.)