Search

Background: Tackling problematic polypharmacy is a global health safety priority and is likely to require a multifaceted approach. UK health policy hinges around the potential of medication reviews, but deprescribing in medication reviews is uncommon and evidence on how to harness their potential is sparse. Methods: Storytelling Group, a design-led methodology, was used to invite experts-by-experience ('story-creators') to re-imagine the medication review. We facilitated three 2-h workshops with seven story-creators, aged 65+ with experience of polypharmacy and an interest in identifying ways of safely reducing medications. Participants collaboratively built fictive scenarios, creating characters, chronology, contexts and plots, identifying touchpoints and incorporating personal experience. Provocative prompts ('What ifs?') aided story development. Results: Participants created five rich fictional narratives, featuring protagonists affected by polypharmacy and medication reviews involving new and different professionals, roles and contexts. Storytelling Group enabled experts-by-experience to use their knowledge of current medication review practices as their motivation to inspire novel imagined arrangements. This speculative exercise, deliberately crafted to distance participants from current realities, enabled them to share insights and propose new possibilities to address polypharmacy. The process revealed a range of tacit assumptions regarding the roles of healthcare professionals, patients, medications, the health system, and their inter-relationships. Only two of the five narratives they co-constructed involved deprescribing, neither in conventional clinical settings. We then curated a prototype collection of seven fictional short stories ('Let's Talk Differently About Medicines') which we refined through user-experience testing. Conclusions: Our study is an empirical exploration of a design-led methodology which may be adapted for application in healthcare improvement when the phenomenon being addressed is sufficiently complex as to escape easy articulation or resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary health services are primarily designed around single diseases. People with multimorbidity (multiple long‐term health conditions) often become burdened by accumulated treatments. Through multimodal fieldwork in a socially disadvantaged London borough, we explore how people living with multimorbidity navigate conditions of 'chronic crisis', encompassing ill‐health, overmedicalisation, polypharmacy and social exclusion. Participants in our study frequently experience 'existential stuckness', exacerbated by processes of social exclusion. We argue that diagnoses and treatments should account for people's unique aetiologies, and prioritise the notion of 'flourishing' over 'cure' as the absence of disease is not always achievable. To foster this emphasis on flourishing, we advocate for a dialogical turn in diagnostic processes that better support patients' existential needs in the context of long‐term illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of e-learning has opened up new opportunities for innovation in assessment practices in higher education. This descriptive case study draws upon staff and student experiences of teaching and learning on a web-based Masters programme in primary health care to explore how specific features of the online environment can be exploited to promote assessment as part of learning. It begins by identifying different ways of conceptualising assessment in order to highlight the fundamental value choices facing those developing and delivering assessment systems, and then describes our own approach to assessment. In the second part of the paper we explore two key ways in which the online learning environment enables assessment to contribute to learning--through its potential to support collaborative learning, and through facilitating high quality feedback between teachers and students.

Dementia researchers have persuasively argued for using flexible and creative methods with people with dementia, to ensure their historically marginalised voices are now heard. This article builds on that work, using examples from a study of medicines practices of people with dementia and their informal carers. We have two aims: firstly, we show the ways in which two methods – linguistic ethnography and diary-interview method – can support the inclusion and participation of people with dementia. Secondly, we examine the methodological insights and the dilemmas created by using these methods. Our focus on supporting all means of communication (verbal, non-verbal, drawing, photography and writing) underpinned our choice of methods, which in turn facilitated inclusion and participation. Using a linguistic ethnographic approach supported participants to use material objects to tell their stories; video-recording interactions encompassed non-verbal communication; creative diary-methods made non-linguistic means of knowledge production possible. Moving around the home and neighbourhood and using familiar objects enabled people with dementia to explain their medicines in the context of their lives. Paying attention to sensory data created new insights into the skills and knowledge that family members develop and employ when they provide informal care. The methods were not without challenges. Participants experienced a tension in balancing opportunities for self-expression with the time and effort involved in participatory activities. For the researcher, prioritising the affective quality of respectful research relationships whilst not straying into 'faked friendship' created situated ethical dilemmas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Polypharmacy is an important safety concern. Medication reviews are recommended for patients affected by polypharmacy, but little is known about how they are conducted, nor how clinicians make sense of them. We used video-reflexive ethnography (VRE) to: illuminate how reviews are conducted; elicit professional dialogue and concerns about polypharmacy; invite new transferable understandings of polypharmacy and its management. Methods We conducted 422 hours of fieldwork (participant observation), filmed 18 consultations between clinicians and patients receiving 10 or more regular items of medication (so-called 'higher risk' polypharmacy) and played short clips of film footage to 34 participants (general practitioners, nurses, clinical pharmacists, practice managers) in seven audio-recorded reflexive workshops. Our analysis focused on 'moments of potentiation' and traced clinicians' shifting understandings of their practices. Results Participants rarely referenced biomedical aspects of prescribing (eg, drug- drug interactions, 'Numbers Needed to Treat/Harm') focussing instead on polypharmacy as an emotional and relational challenge. Clinicians initially denigrated their medication review work as mundane. Through VRE they reframed their work as complex, identifying polypharmacy as a delicate matter to negotiate. In patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy it was difficult to disentangle medication review from other aspects of patients' medical care. Such conditions of complexity presented clinicians with competing professional obligations which were difficult to reconcile. Medication review was identified as an ongoing process, rather than a discrete 'one-off' activity. Meaningful progress towards tackling polypharmacy was only possible through small, incremental, carefully supported changes in which both patient and clinician negotiated a sharing of responsibility, best supported by continuity of care. Conclusions Supporting acceptable, feasible and meaningful progress towards addressing problematic polypharmacy may require shifts in how medication reviews are conceptualised. Responsible decision-making under conditions of such complexity and uncertainty depends crucially on the affective or emotional quality of the clinician-patient relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Information and communications technologies (ICTs) in healthcare are often introduced with expectations of higher-quality, more efficient, and safer care. Many fail to meet these expectations. We argue here that the well-documented failures of ICTs in healthcare are partly attributable to the philosophical foundations of much health informatics research. Positivistic assumptions underpinning the design, implementation and evaluation of ICTs (in particular the notion that technology X has an impact which can be measured and reproduced in new settings), and the deterministic experimental and quasi-experimental study designs which follow from these assumptions, have inherent limitations when ICTs are part of complex social practices involving multiple human actors. We suggest that while experimental and quasi-experimental studies have an important place in health informatics research overall, ethnography is the preferred methodological approach for studying ICTs introduced into complex social systems. But for ethnographic approaches to be accepted and used to their full potential, many in the health informatics community will need to revisit their philosophical assumptions about what counts as research rigor.

Abstract Background Health informatics research has traditionally been dominated by experimental and quasi-experimental designs. An emerging area of study in organisational sociology is routinisation (how collaborative work practices become business-as-usual). There is growing interest in the use of ethnography and other in-depth qualitative approaches to explore how collaborative work routines are enacted and develop over time, and how electronic patient records (EPRs) are used to support collaborative work practices within organisations. Methods/design Following Feldman and Pentland, we will use 'the organisational routine' as our unit of analysis. In a sample of four UK general practices, we will collect narratives, ethnographic observations, multi-modal (video and screen capture) data, documents and other artefacts, and analyse these to map and compare the different understandings and enactments of three common routines (repeat prescribing, coding and summarising, and chronic disease surveillance) which span clinical and administrative spaces and which, though 'mundane', have an important bearing on quality and safety of care. In a detailed qualitative analysis informed by sociological theory, we aim to generate insights about how complex collaborative work is achieved through the process of routinisation in healthcare organisations. Discussion Our study offers the potential not only to identify potential quality failures (poor performance, errors, failures of coordination) in collaborative work routines but also to reveal the hidden work and workarounds by front-line staff which bridge the model-reality gap in EPR technologies and via which "automated" safety features have an impact in practice.