Search

Objectives: To establish principles informing a new scoring system for the UK’s Clinical Impact Awards and pilot a system based on those principles. Design: A three-round online Delphi process was used to generate consensus from experts on principles a scoring system should follow. We conducted a shadow scoring exercise of 20 anonymised, historic applications using a new scoring system incorporating those principles. Setting: Assessment of clinical excellence awards for senior doctors and dentists in England and Wales. Participants: The Delphi panel comprised 45 members including clinical excellence award assessors and representatives of professional bodies. The shadow scoring exercise was completed by 24 current clinical excellence award assessors. Main outcome measures: The Delphi panel rated the appropriateness of a series of items. In the shadow scoring exercise, a novel scoring system was used with each of five domains rated on a 0–10 scale. Results: Consensus was achieved around principles that could underpin a future scoring system; in particular, a 0–10 scale with the lowest point on the scale reflecting someone operating below the expectations of their job plan was agreed as appropriate. The shadow scoring exercise showed similar levels of reliability between the novel scoring system and that used historically, but with potentially better distinguishing performance at higher levels of performance. Conclusions: Clinical excellence awards represent substantial public spending and thus far the deployment of these funds has lacked a strong evidence base. We have developed a new scoring system in a robust manner which shows improvements over current arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Parents of children with eczema are increasingly turning to online parenting forums for advice about how to manage it. Little is known about how parents make sense of advice about eczema treatments in online forums, and how it affects their management of childhood eczema. Aim: To explore how parents of children with eczema make sense of and act on advice about eczema treatments exchanged in online parenting forums. Design & setting: Qualitative interviews with parents of children with eczema from the UK. Method: Fifteen parents were recruited through online advertisements and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were carried out face to face or by telephone, and analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: When seeking advice from online parenting forums about eczema treatments, parents described appraising the credibility of advice and considering the potential suitability of treatments that were recommended in the forum. Parents proceeded to make sense of online advice through either reading advice and not engaging in online discussions, or actively engaging in online discussions to direct topics and seek most relevant advice. Parents discussed advice received online in subsequent consultations with their GP and requested prescriptions of recommended treatments. Some parents described trying new treatments without consulting their GP. Conclusion: Understanding how parents appraise, make sense of, and act on online advice could support healthcare professionals to disseminate advice appropriately, ask additional questions, and signpost parents to reliable online resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pregnancy provides motivation for women to improve their diets and increase their physical activity. Opportunistic brief interventions delivered as part of routine primary care have produced improvements in patients' health behaviour. Consequently, there have been calls for midwives to use contacts during pregnancy in this way. This study explored the experiences of pregnant women and research midwives/nurses of a brief intervention called Healthy Conversation Skills (HCS) being delivered as part of a randomised control trial, assessing the acceptability and feasibility of including this intervention in routine maternity care. Three research questions were addressed using mixed methods to produce four datasets: face‐to‐face interviews with participants, a focus group with the HCS‐trained midwives/nurses, case reports of participants receiving HCS and audio‐recordings of mid‐pregnancy telephone calls to the women which produced midwife/nurse HCS competency scores. Midwives/nurses used their HCS to support women to make plans for change and set goals. Women welcomed the opportunity to address their own health and well‐being as distinct from that of their baby. Midwives/nurses were competent in using the skills and saw healthy conversations as an effective means of raising issues of diet and physical activity. Recent extension of maternity appointment times provides ideal opportunities to incorporate a brief intervention to support behaviour change. Incorporating HCS training into midwifery education and continuing professional development would facilitate this. HCS is a scalable, brief intervention with the potential to improve the diets and physical activity levels of women during pregnancy, and hence the health of themselves and their babies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring., Design: Semistructured qualitative interview study., Participants: 25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity., Findings: Participants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying 'clinical excellence' as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor's job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors., Conclusions: Participants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BMT, GAA, JS, RF, LH and EP declare no completing interests. JLC holds a national clinical excellence award. JLC has previously been both a member and Chair of a Regional Subcommittee of ACCEA, although had no involvement with ACCEA administration at the time the research was commissioned and undertaken., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)