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

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

‘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

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

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

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

Person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty: a qualitative interview study and proposal of a collaborative model

Objectives (1) Present deprescribing experiences of patients living with frailty, their informal carers and healthcare professionals; (2) interpret whether their experiences are reflective of person-centred/collaborative care; (3) complement our findings with existing evidence to present a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty, based on a previous collaborative care model. Methods Qualitative design in English primary care (general practice). Semi-structured interviews were undertaken immediately post-deprescribing and 5/6 weeks later with nine patients aged 65+ living with frailty and three informal carers of patients living with frailty. Fourteen primary care professionals with experience in deprescribing were also interviewed. In total, 38 interviews were conducted. A two-staged approach to data analysis was undertaken. Key findings Three themes were developed: attitudes, beliefs and understanding of medicines management and responsibility; attributes of a collaborative, person-centred deprescribing consultation; organisational factors to support person-centred deprescribing. Based on these findings and complementary to existing evidence, we offer a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty. Conclusions Previous models of deprescribing for patients living with frailty while, of value, do not consider the contextual factors that govern the implementation and success of models in practice. In this paper, we propose a novel person-centred model for deprescribing for people living with frailty, based on our own empirical findings, and the wider evidence base

Patient and public co‐creation of healthcare safety and healthcare system resilience: The case of COVID‐19

Introduction Healthcare system resilience is a conceptual approach that seeks to explore how health services adapt and respond to variability in demand and resources. As has been witnessed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services have undergone many reconfigurations. One understudied aspect of how the ‘system’ is able to adapt and respond is the contribution of key stakeholders—patients and families, and in the context of the pandemic, the general public as a whole. This study aimed to understand what people were doing during the first wave of the pandemic to protect the safety of their health, and the health of others from COVID-19, and the resilience of the healthcare system. Methods Social media (Twitter) was used as a method of recruitment due to its ability for social reach. Twenty-one participants took part in 57 semistructured interviews over three time points from June to September 2020. The included an initial interview and invitation to two follow-up interviews after 3 and 6 weeks. Interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom—an encrypted secure video conferencing software. A reflexive thematic analysis approach to analysis was used. Results Three themes, each with its own subthemes were identified in the analysis: (1) A ‘new safety normal’; (2) Existing vulnerabilities and heightened safety and (3) Are we all in this together? Conclusion This study found that the public had a role in supporting the resilience of healthcare services and systems during the first wave of the pandemic by adapting their behaviour to protect themselves and others, and to avoid overwhelming the National Health Service. People who had existing vulnerabilities were more likely to experience safety gaps in their care, and be required to step in to support their safety, despite it being more difficult for them to do so. It may be that the most vulnerable were previously required to do this extra work to support the safety of their care and that the pandemic has just illuminated this issue. Future research should explore existing vulnerabilities and inequalities, and the heightened safety consequences created by the pandemic. Patient and Public Contribution The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC), Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Research Fellow and NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC Patient Involvement in Patient Safety theme lay leader are involved in the preparation of a lay version of the findings within this manuscript

Gaps, traps, bridges and props: a mixed-methods study of resilience in the medicines management system for patients with heart failure at hospital discharge

Introduction: Poor medicines management places patients at risk, particularly during care transitions. For patients with heart failure (HF), optimal medicines management is crucial to control symptoms and prevent hospital readmission. This study explored the concept of resilience using HF as an example condition to understand how the system compensates for known and unknown weaknesses. Methods: We explored resilience using a mixed-methods approach in four healthcare economies in the north of England. Data from hospital site observations, healthcare staff and patient interviews, and documentary analysis were collected between June 2016 and March 2017. Data were synthesised and analysed using framework analysis. Results: Interviews were conducted with 45 healthcare professionals, with 20 patients at three time points and 189 hours of observation were undertaken. We identified four primary inter-related themes concerning organisational resilience. These were named as gaps, traps, bridges and props. Gaps were discontinuities in processes that had the potential to result in poorly optimised medicines. Traps were features of the system that could produce errors or unintended adverse medication events. Bridges were features of the medicines management system that promoted safety and continuity which ensured that, despite varying conditions, care could be delivered successfully. Props were informal, temporary or impromptu actions taken by patients or healthcare staff to avoid potential adverse events. Conclusion: The numerous opportunities for HF patient safety to be compromised and for suboptimal medicines management during this common care transition are mitigated by system resilience. Cross-organisational bridges and temporary fixes or ‘props’ put in place by patients and carers, healthcare teams and organisations are critical for safe and optimal care to be delivered in the face of continued system pressures