Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale: a measure of doctor and nurse attitudes to adverse event reporting

Objective: To develop a validated measure of professionals' attitudes towards clinical adverse event reporting (CAER). Design: Cross-sectional survey with follow-up. Participants: 201 doctors and nurse/nurse-midwives undergoing postqualification training in Leeds, York and Hull Universities in 2003. Materials: A questionnaire which comprised 73 items extracted from interviews with professionals; a second, statistically reduced version of this questionnaire. Results: The analysis supported a 25-item questionnaire comprising five factors: blame as a consequence of reporting (six items); criteria for reporting (six items); colleagues' expectations (six items); perceived benefits of reporting events (five items); and clarity of reporting procedures (two items). The resulting questionnaire, the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Effects Scale (RoCAES), had satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83) and external reliability (Spearman's correlation = 0.65). The construct validity hypothesis -doctors have less positive attitudes towards CAER than nurses -was supported (t = 5.495; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Initial development of an evidence-based, psychometrically rigorous measure of attitudes towards CAER has been reported. Following additional testing, RoCAES may be used to systematically elicit professionals' views about, and inform interventions to improve, reporting behaviour

The patient’s perspectives of safe and routine proactive deprescribing in primary care for older people living with polypharmacy: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe process of identifying and discontinuing medicines in instances in which harms outweigh benefits (deprescribing) can mitigate the negative consequences of problematic polypharmacy. This process should be conducted with a focus on the patient and involve collaborative decision-making. Evidence is needed regarding patients’ views on how deprescribing should be safely and routinely implemented in English primary care to improve its application. This study aimed to identify optimal methods of introducing and actioning deprescribing from the patient’s perspective.MethodsParticipants in England aged 65 and above who were taking five or more medicines and residing in their own homes were recruited through social media and service user groups. An interview guide was created from deprescribing literature and input from patients and the public, guided by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). The interviews were held online using Microsoft Teams\uae or via phone, recorded, and then transcribed. The data was analysed using the Framework analysis.ResultsTwenty patients (mean age of 74.5, SD = 6.93), with 75% being female, were enrolled in the study. Three main themes emerged: (1) ‘Why deprescribe now?’ emphasised the significance of explaining the reasons behind deprescribing; (2) ‘Monitoring and follow-up’ underscored the necessity of safety measures during deprescribing and patients’ willingness to self-monitor post-intervention; (3) ‘Roles and relationships’ explored patient perceptions of various healthcare professionals involved in deprescribing and the essential interpersonal skills for fostering therapeutic relationships.ConclusionOptimal methods of introducing deprescribing included communicating a convincing rationale for stopping medicines and preparing patients for deprescribing conversations. Patients required support from a range of healthcare professionals with whom they had an existing therapeutic relationship. Whilst patients were motivated to self-monitor unwanted/unexpected effects post-deprescribing, timely support was required. The nature of such bolstered collective action and cognitive participation within NPT enhances the normalisation potential of deprescribing. These findings highlight the significance of considering the content and process of deprescribing consultations to enhance normalisation and tackle problematic polypharmacy. This provides a deeper understanding of patients’ needs for implementing safe and routine deprescribing in primary care, which should be considered when designing medication review and deprescribing services

Completion of fit notes by GPs: a mixed methods study

Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate the completion of fit notes by UK general practitioners (GPs). A series of actual fit notes issued to employed patients were examined, and their GPs’ reflections and experiences of fit note completion explored. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used. Data were collected from copies of 94 fit notes issued to employed patients by 11 GPs, and from 86 questionnaires completed by these GPs reflecting on the fit notes they had issued. Face-to-face interviews were then conducted with each GP. Results: Fit note completion is not meeting expectations for a number of reasons. These include the following: limited knowledge and awareness of the guidance in fit note completion; problems with the fit note format; lack of mandatory training in completing fit notes; lack of incentive to change practice; incomplete implementation of the electronic fit note; GPs’ lack of confidence in, and doubts about the appropriateness of performing this role. Conclusion: If UK GPs are to continue their contractual responsibility for completing fit notes, further consideration of their education and training needs is urgently required. Weaknesses in the design and format of the fit note and the availability of the electronic version also need to be addressed

Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform

Introduction Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. Methods Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. Results One hundred and sixty-three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. Conclusion Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. Patient or Public Contribution Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development

A qualitative analysis of stressors affecting 999 ambulance call handlers' mental health and well-being

Purpose: The 999 ambulance call handler is critical in responding to emergency patient treatment; however, the call handlers are often a hidden component of the healthcare workforce and an under-researched group. The objective of this study is to understand stress triggers experienced by 999 ambulance call handlers that could lead to burnout and examine personal and organisational mechanisms and strategies which reduced the risk of burnout. Design/methodology/approach: A single interview case study approach applying qualitative methods was undertaken. Participants were identified through a purposive sample of 999 ambulance call handlers with the Yorkshire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust (UK). Participants were interviewed via telephone between July 2019 and September 2019. Findings: In total, 18 staff participated in this study. Societal factors including public incivility and media representation and organisational factors, such as a demanding environment, lack of appreciation and career progression, training issues and protocols were key stressors. Organisational well-being services were helpful for some, but for others lacked accessibility and appropriateness. Positive public feedback and speaking with peers bolstered well-being. 999 ambulance call handlers suggested that sufficient breaks, co-design or feeding back on training and protocols and creating more informal opportunities to discuss ongoing everyday stressors as methods to reduce stress and burnout. Originality/value: This paper explores a previously under researched area on stressors and potential burnout in 999 call handlers. This paper highlights the need for improved organisational support services and appropriate public and sector peer recognition of the role of ambulance 999 ambulance call handlers

‘It\u27s a job to be done’. Managing polypharmacy at home: A qualitative interview study exploring the experiences of older people living with frailty

IntroductionMany older people live with both multiple long-term conditions and frailty; thus, they manage complex medicines regimens and are at heightened risk of the consequences of medicines errors. Research to enhance how people manage medicines has focused on adherence to regimens rather than on the wider skills necessary to safely manage medicines, and the older population living with frailty and managing multiple medicines at home has been under-explored. This study, therefore, examines in depth how older people with mild to moderate frailty manage their polypharmacy regimens at home.MethodsBetween June 2021 and February 2022, 32 patients aged 65 years or older with mild or moderate frailty and taking five or more medicines were recruited from 10 medical practices in the North of England, United Kingdom, and the CARE 75+ research cohort. Semi-structured interviews were conducted face to face, by telephone or online. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.FindingsFive themes were developed: (1) Managing many medicines is a skilled job I didn\u27t apply for; (2) Medicines keep me going, but what happened to my life?; (3) Managing medicines in an unclear system; (4) Support with medicines that makes my work easier; and (5) My medicines are familiar to me—there is nothing else I need (or want) to know.While navigating fragmented care, patients were expected to fit new medicines routines into their lives and keep on top of their medicines supply. Sometimes, they felt let down by a system that created new obstacles instead of supporting their complex daily work.ConclusionFrail older patients, who are at heightened risk of the impact of medicines errors, are expected to perform complex work to safely self-manage multiple medicines at home. Such a workload needs to be acknowledged, and more needs to be done to prepare people in order to avoid harm from medicines.Patient and Public InvolvementAn older person managing multiple medicines at home was a core member of the research team. An advisory group of older patients and family members advised the study and was involved in the first stages of data analysis. This influenced how data were coded and themes shaped

Incivility experiences of racially minoritised hospital staff, consequences for them and implications for patient care: An international scoping review

Workplace incivility is a pervasive complex problem within health care. Incivility manifests as subtle disrespectful behaviours, which seem inconsequential. However, evidence demonstrates that incivility can be harmful to targets and witnesses through negative emotions, poorer mental health, reduced job satisfaction, diminished performance and compromised patient care. It is unclear to what extent existing research critically explores how ethnicity, culture and racism influence how hospital staff experience incivility. This global scoping review systematically analysed existing research exploring the specific ways incivility manifests and impacts racially minoritised hospital workers. Of 2636 academic and 101 grey literature articles, 32 were included. Incivility experiences were categorised into four themes: (1) Cultural control, (2) Rejection of work contributions, (3) Disempowerment at work and (4) Managerial indifference. The included articles highlighted detrimental consequences, such as negative emotions, silencing, withdrawal and reduced support-seeking behaviours. Few studies presented evidence regarding the negative impacts of incivility on patient care. Racialisation and racial dynamics are a significant factor for hospital-based incivility. Currently we do not know the extent to which racialised incivility is associated directly or, perhaps either via burnout or disengagement, indirectly with poorer care. This knowledge can inform the creation of comprehensive, evidence-based interventions to address this important issue

Recommendations to facilitate the ideal fit note: are they achievable in practice?

Background: Although the UK fit note has been broadly welcomed as a tool to facilitate return to work, difficulties and uncertainties have resulted in wide variation in its use. Agreement on what constitutes the ‘ideal’ fit note from the perspective of all stakeholders is needed to inform best practice. A recent Delphi study conducted by the authors reached consensus on 67 recommendations for best practice in fit note use for employed patients. However, such recommendations are not necessarily followed in practice. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the perceived achievability of implementing these Delphi recommendations with a further reference panel of stakeholders. Methods: Potential participants were identified by the research team and study steering group. These included representatives of employers, government departments, trades unions, patient organisations, general and medical practitioners and occupational health organisations who were believed to have the knowledge and experience to comment on the recommendations. The consensus Delphi statements were presented to the participants on-line. Participants were invited to comment on whether the recommendations were achievable, and what might hinder or facilitate their use in practice. Free text comments were combined with comments made in the Delphi study that referred to issues of feasibility or practicality. These were synthesised and analysed thematically. Results: Twelve individuals representing a range of stakeholder groups participated. Many of the recommendations were considered achievable, such as improved format and use of the electronic fit note, completion of all fields, better application and revision of guidance and education in fit note use. However a number of obstacles to implementation were identified. These included: legislation governing the fit note and GP contracts; the costs and complexity of IT systems and software; the limitations of the GP consultation; unclear roles and responsibilities for the funding and delivery of education, guidance and training for all stakeholders, and the evaluation of practice. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that although many recommendations for the ideal fit note are considered achievable, there are considerable financial, legal, organisational and professional obstacles to be overcome in order for the recommendations to be implemented successfully

Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform

YesCare Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. One hundred and sixty-three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development.National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC

Non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The number of people with a chronic disease will strongly increase in the next decades. Therefore, prevention of disease becomes increasingly important. The aim of this systematic review was to identify factors that negatively influence participation in population-based disease prevention programs in General Practice and to establish whether the program type is related to non-participation levels.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review in Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, covering 2000 through July 6th 2012, to identify publications including information about characteristics of non-participants or reasons for non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in General Practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 24 original studies met our criteria, seven of which focused on vaccination, eleven on screening aimed at early detection of disease, and six on screening aimed at identifying high risk of a disease, targeting a variety of diseases and conditions. Lack of personal relevance of the program, younger age, higher social deprivation and former non-participation were related to actual non-participation. No differences were found in non-participation levels or factors related to non-participation between the three program types. The large variation in non-participation levels within the program types may be partly due to differences in recruitment strategies, with more active, personalized strategies resulting in higher participation levels compared to an invitation letter.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is still much to be gained by tailoring strategies to improve participation in those who are less likely to do so, namely younger individuals, those living in a deprived area and former non-participants. Participation may increase by applying more active recruitment strategies.</p