Caring for the patient, caring for the record: an ethnographic study of 'back office' work in upholding quality of care in general practice

© 2015 Swinglehurst and Greenhalgh; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Additional file 1: Box 1. Field notes on summarising (Clover Surgery). Box 2. Extract of document prepared for GPs by summarisers at Clover Surgery. Box 3. Fieldnotes on coding incoming post, Clover (original notes edited for brevity).This work was funded by a research grant from the UK Medical Research Council (Healthcare Electronic Records in Organisations 07/133) and a National Institute of Health Research doctoral fellowship award for DS (RDA/03/07/076). The funders were not involved in the selection or analysis of data nor did they make any contribution to the content of the final manuscript

Caring for quality of care: symbolic violence and the bureaucracies of audit.

BACKGROUND: This article considers the moral notion of care in the context of Quality of Care discourses. Whilst care has clear normative implications for the delivery of health care it is less clear how Quality of Care, something that is centrally involved in the governance of UK health care, relates to practice. DISCUSSION: This paper presents a social and ethical analysis of Quality of Care in the light of the moral notion of care and Bourdieu's conception of symbolic violence. We argue that Quality of Care bureaucracies show significant potential for symbolic violence or the domination of practice and health care professionals. This generates problematic, and unintended, consequences that can displace the goals of practice. SUMMARY: Quality of Care bureaucracies may have unintended consequences for the practice of health care. Consistent with feminist conceptions of care, Quality of Care 'audits' should be reconfigured so as to offer a more nuanced and responsive form of evaluation

Translating and transforming care: people with brain injury and caregivers filling in a disability claim form

This article examines how the Disability Living Allowance claim form, used in the United Kingdom to allocate £13 billion of disability benefits, translates and transforms disability and care. Twenty-two people with acquired brain injury and their main informal caregivers (n = 44) were video-recorded filling in the disability claim form. Participants disagreed on 26% of the questions, revealing two types of problems. Translation problems arose as participants struggled to provide categorical responses to ambiguous questions and were unable to report contextual variability in care needs or divergences of perception. Transformation problems arose as participants resisted the way in which the form positioned them, forcing them to conceptualize their relationship in terms of dependency and burden. The disability claim form co-opts claimants to translate care and disability into bureaucratically predefined categories, and it transforms the care relationship that it purports to document

Competency, confidence and conflicting evidence: key issues affecting health visitors' use of research evidence in practice

BACKGROUND: Health visitors play a pivotal position in providing parents with up-to-date evidence-based care on child health. The recent controversy over the safety of the MMR vaccine has drawn attention to the difficulties they face when new research which raises doubts about current guidelines and practices is published. In the aftermath of the MMR controversy, this paper investigates the sources health visitors use to find out about new research evidence on immunisation and examines barriers and facilitators to using evidence in practice. It also assesses health visitors' confidence in using research evidence. METHODS: Health visitors were recruited from the 2007 UK Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association conference. All delegates were eligible to complete the questionnaire if in their current professional role they advise parents about childhood immunisation or administer vaccines to children. Of 228 who were eligible, 185 completed the survey (81.1%). RESULTS: These health visitors used a wide range of resources to find out about new research evidence on childhood immunisation. Popular sources included information leaflets and publications, training days, nursing journals and networking with colleagues. A lack of time was cited as the main barrier to searching for new evidence. The most common reason given for not using research in practice was a perception of conflicting research evidence. Understanding the evidence was a key facilitator. Health visitors expressed less confidence about searching and explaining research on childhood immunisation than evidence on weaning and a baby's sleep position. CONCLUSION: Even motivated health visitors feel they lack the time and, in some cases, the skills to locate and appraise research evidence. This research suggests that of the provision of already-appraised research would help to keep busy health professionals informed, up-to-date and confident in responding to public concerns, particularly when there is apparently conflicting evidence. Health visitors' relative lack of confidence about research on immunisation suggests there is still a job to be done in rebuilding confidence in evidence on childhood immunisation. Further research on what makes evidence more comprehensible, convincing and useable would contribute to understanding how to bridge the gulf between evidence and practice

The role of informal dimensions of safety in high-volume organisational routines:an ethnographic study of test results handling in UK general practice

Abstract Background The handling of laboratory, imaging and other test results in UK general practice is a high-volume organisational routine that is both complex and high risk. Previous research in this area has focused on errors and harm, but a complementary approach is to better understand how safety is achieved in everyday practice. This paper ethnographically examines the role of informal dimensions of test results handling routines in the achievement of safety in UK general practice and how these findings can best be developed for wider application by policymakers and practitioners. Methods Non-participant observation was conducted of high-volume organisational routines across eight UK general practices with diverse organisational characteristics. Sixty-two semi-structured interviews were also conducted with the key practice staff alongside the analysis of relevant documents. Results While formal results handling routines were described similarly across the eight study practices, the everyday structure of how the routine should be enacted in practice was informally understood. Results handling safety took a range of local forms depending on how different aspects of safety were prioritised, with practices varying in terms of how they balanced thoroughness (i.e. ensuring the high-quality management of results by the most appropriate clinician) and efficiency (i.e. timely management of results) depending on a range of factors (e.g. practice history, team composition). Each approach adopted created its own potential risks, with demands for thoroughness reducing productivity and demands for efficiency reducing handling quality. Irrespective of the practice-level approach adopted, staff also regularly varied what they did for individual patients depending on the specific context (e.g. type of result, patient circumstances). Conclusions General practices variably prioritised a legitimate range of results handling safety processes and outcomes, each with differing strengths and trade-offs. Future safety improvement interventions should focus on how to maximise practice-level knowledge and understanding of the range of context-specific approaches available and the safeties and risks inherent in each within the context of wider complex system conditions and interactions. This in turn has the potential to inform new kinds of proactive, contextually appropriate approaches to intervention development and implementation focusing on the enhanced deliberation of the safety of existing high-volume routines

Studying technology use as social practice: the untapped potential of ethnography

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

Liminality in Practice: A Case study in Life Sciences Research

Contemporary health challenges (e.g. diabetes, climate change, antimicrobial resistance) are underpinned by complex interrelationships between behavioral, cultural, social, environmental and biological processes. Current experimental systems are only partially relevant to the problems they investigate, but aspirations to embed interdisciplinary working and community engagement into life scientists’ work inresponse to this partiality have proven difficult in practice. This paper explores one UK university-based life sciences initiative as it seeks to develop modes of working which respond to this complexity. Drawing on ‘liminal hotspots’ as a sensitizing concept, we explore how participating academics articulate complex problems, knowledge-making, interdisciplinary working and community engagement. Our analysis shows they become recurrently ‘trapped’ (institutionally and epistemologically) between fixed/universalized cosmologies of biology/disease, and more contemporary cosmologies in which biology and disease are conceptualized as situated and evolving. Adopting approaches to community organizing based on ‘process pragmatism’ we propose ways in which life scientists might radically reorganise their practice and move beyond current limiting enactments of interdisciplinary and community engaged working. In doing so we claim that the relevance and ‘humanness’ of life scienceresearch will be increased