Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery

BACKGROUND: The ability to capture the complexities of healthcare practices and the quick turnaround of findings make rapid ethnographies appealing to the healthcare sector, where changing organisational climates and priorities require actionable findings at strategic time points. Despite methodological advancement, there continue to be challenges in the implementation of rapid ethnographies concerning sampling, the interpretation of findings and management of field research. The purpose of this review was to explore the benefits and challenges of using rapid ethnographies to inform healthcare organisation and delivery and identify areas that require improvement. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the articles. We developed the search strategy using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Settingframework and searched for peer-reviewed articles in MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, Web of Science and ProQuest Central. We included articles that reported findings from rapid ethnographies in healthcare contexts or addressing issues related to health service use. RESULTS: 26 articles were included in the review. We found an increase in the use of rapid ethnographies in the last 2‰years. We found variability in terminology and developed a typology to clarify conceptual differences. The studies generated findings that could be used to inform policy and practice. The main limitations of the studies were: the poor quality of reporting of study designs, mainly data analysis methods, and lack of reflexivity. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid ethnographies have the potential to generate findings that can inform changes in healthcare practices in a timely manner, but greater attention needs to be paid to the reflexive interpretation of findings and the description of research methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017065874

What is not, but might be: The disnarrated in parents' stories of their child's cancer treatment

The study of illness narratives is based on the premise that stories are told for a reason and storytellers make narrative decisions on what to include and leave out of a story, the style of narration, the place where the story is told and the audience. Through this narrative work, they situate themselves in particular ways and make sense of the illness and the world around them. In this article, we explore the disnarrated, a style of narration that features events that do not happen, but are nonetheless referred to in the story. The aim of the article is to illustrate the additional layers of meaning that can be uncovered from illness stories when attention is paid to what did not happen, but, yet, is still part of the story. We draw from a qualitative study carried out with 17 parents whose children were diagnosed with cancer and were receiving medical care in Argentina. We carried out narrative interviews with the parents and participant-observation in hospital areas and the hotels where they resided during treatment. The analysis of the interview transcripts was carried out using a holistic understanding of the narratives and focusing on the identification of themes that appeared disnarrated. The fieldnotes from the observations were used to contextualize the narrative analysis. The disnarrated, in its many manifestations, produced a layer of analysis of parents' stories of treatment patterned by parents' desires, hopes and fears. The disnarrated was used by parents to discuss alternative care trajectories and express fears regarding what the future would bring for the child and family. The disnarrated is a useful analytical tool for examining illness stories as it points to storytellers’ views of what is acceptable or desirable in their world and their hopes and preferences for alternative realities.Fil: Vindrola Padros, Cecilia. University College London; Reino UnidoFil: Brage, Eugenia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Instituto de Ciencias Antropológicas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

A Cautionary Tale: The ‘New’ Medical Tourism Industry in Argentina

Argentina’s universal model of healthcare and open immigration policies make it a popular destination for people from neighbouring countries requiring free medical treatments. These medical tourists come from Bolivia, Peru, and Paraguay. They are often from low-income households and rural areas, and travel to Argentina seeking medical attention in public hospitals because they are unable to pay for services in their own countries. In addition to these patients, current governmental-private sector agreements are being put in place to attract patients from the US and Europe. This new initiative – called Medicina Argentina (Argentina Healthcare) – hopes to raise the number of foreign patients from 6000 per year to 100,000. In theory, this change in government policy seeks to: provide services to patients who might not be able to access them in their own countries (due to high cost, unavailability, or long waiting lists), increase Argentine tourism income, and improve the quality of the medical services available for local populations. However, in practice, it will mean that an already overburdened healthcare system will have to adapt to suit the needs of short-term, medical tourists. The flow of foreign patients will interact with local migrating patients to create a tiered system of medical tourism, posing ethical and legal challenges in the distribution of scarce resources and regulation of medical care. In this article, I explore the ethical and practical impact of this “new” medical tourism industry on the care provided to the local population

Advocating for carers: a qualitative study exploring the needs of UK carers of patients with an acoustic neuroma

Research on the impact of caring for patients with an acoustic neuroma is scarce. Findings from 12 interviews with primary carers of this patient population highlight six key themes: life disruption, support, well-being, the carer role, lessons learned and the impact of COVID-19. Carers need more practical information and emotional support, starting from the diagnosis stage through to recovery. Recommendations include routine carer assessments, early signposting to auxiliary services and information materials about recovery. This study contributes to the UK literature gap of this under-studied population and demonstrates the importance of carer assessments, as set out in the Carers Act 2014

Gender Matters: A Gender Analysis of Healthcare Workers’ Experiences during the First COVID-19 Pandemic Peak in England

The coronavirus (COVID-19) arrived in the United Kingdom (UK) in February 2020, placing an unprecedented burden on the National Health Service (NHS). Literature from past epidemics and the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of using a gender lens when considering policy, experiences, and impacts of the disease. Researchers are increasingly examining the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs), yet there is a dearth of research considering how gender shapes HCWs’ personal experiences. As the majority of HCWs in the UK and worldwide are women, research that investigates gender and focuses on women’s experiences is urgently needed. We conducted an analysis of 41 qualitative interviews with HCWs in the British NHS during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020. Our findings demonstrate that gender is significant when understanding the experiences of HCWs during COVID-19 as it illuminates ingrained inequalities and asymmetrical power relations, gendered organizational structures and norms, and individual gendered bodies that interact to shape experiences of healthcare workers. These findings point to important steps to improve gender equality, the wellbeing of healthcare workers, and the overall strength of the NHS

Boundary work during COVID-19: The transformation of research review and set-up

Background and aims: The rapid setting up of research during the COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in ways of working within research organisations. The aim of this study was to examine the experiences of staff involved in the research review and set-up system at a large NHS and university partnership in the UK through the lens of boundary theory. / Methods: We carried out a rapid qualitative appraisal based on telephone interviews (n=25) to explore how staff experienced the research review and set-up system during the pandemic. / Results: In light of the pressures created by the pandemic, the boundaries established to set up distinct groups and responsibilities were modified to allow for different ways of working. Some of the new structures and processes were seen positively and brought groups that previously worked at a distance closer together. / Conclusions: The reconceptualisation of relations within the research system during the pandemic added more fluidity to ways of working within the research office and contributed to closer working interactions and an expanded team ethos

Examining What We Know in Relation to How We Know It: A Team-Based Reflexivity Model for Rapid Qualitative Health Research

Reflexivity constitutes a core component of qualitative research and has been actively integrated into long-term and “lone ranger” approaches to qualitative research. However, its application to team-based approaches and particularly to rapid qualitative team-based approaches continues to lag behind. In this article, we introduce a reflexivity model we developed for teams undertaking rapid qualitative studies. Utilizing our most recent application of this model to a rapid qualitative appraisal of health care workers’ experiences delivering care during the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, we identify the steps to put this model into practice and its main outcomes. Our application of the model revealed that the team’s practices could be grouped along four dimensions: design assumptions, data collection and analysis processes, multidisciplinary collaboration, and responsible dissemination. Reflexivity can improve the relations within the team and the quality of the research output, if it is implemented as a continuous and iterative process

The impact of maternity service restrictions related to COVID-19 on women's experiences of giving birth in England: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant changes in maternity service delivery in England, including: antenatal appointments being cancelled or held by phone; women having to attend antenatal scans alone; partners not being allowed to accompany women during labor; visitor restrictions on postnatal wards; and limited postnatal support. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 46 women aged 18–45 who had low-risk pregnancies and gave birth to their babies using NHS services in England between 1st March 2020 and 1st March 2021. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis of interview data generated key themes: profound negative impacts of birth partners not being allowed to accompany women (including on emotional wellbeing, birth preferences and care-seeking choices); deep frustration about policy variation between trusts and inconsistent implementation of guidance; women being more concerned about the risk of giving birth alone than of COVID-19 infection; and women turning towards private care or delaying seeking NHS care so that they could have the birth experience they desired. The latter two results are, to the best of our knowledge, unique to this paper. CONCLUSION: Our participants reported significant negative affects to their emotional and physical wellbeing because of maternity service restrictions. Going forward, efforts are required by policymakers and health service providers to re-establish trust in NHS maternity care and ensure capacity to provide for potential shifts in birthplace preferences. Health systems strengthening efforts should prioritise protecting the rights of women to access high quality, person-centred care in the event of future health emergencies that strain NHS capacity

Accessing health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: the experience of NHS maternity service users

Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused various disruptions to NHS maternity services in England. Changes were made to antenatal and postnatal care and the way that information was shared with maternity service users during these times. Fewer face-to-face appointments, increased virtual appointments and changes in guidance about the suitability of the COVID-19 vaccine without appropriate information sharing and evidence caused concern. Methods This study took a blended inductive-deductive approach to secondary data analysis using a population subset of 16 from a wider study that sought to understand the impact of COVID-19 on maternity services in England. Participants of this study were aged 28–44 and gave birth using NHS maternity services in England. The data were collected and coded using Rapid Analysis Procedure sheets, which generated key themes, which are used here to structure the results. Results Four main themes were generated from the analysis: 1) service restrictions to antenatal and postnatal appointments 2) access to information and changes to antenatal and postnatal care 3) inconsistencies in the implementation of government and NHS policy and 4) limited information about COVID-19 vaccine provided by NHS trusts and hesitancy in vaccine acceptance. Conclusion Participants experienced poor communication that affected their understanding of maternity service changes and there was limited general and maternal health information provided. Vaccine information was also inadequate, and participants expressed a desire for clearer guidance. The UK Government, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and NHS must collaborate with maternity service users to ensure that there are evidence-based guidelines and policies that can be understood and standardised across all NHS maternity trusts

NHS Hospital 'Learning from Deaths' reports: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the first year of a countrywide patient safety programme

Introduction: Potentially preventable deaths occur worldwide within healthcare organisations. Organisational learning from incidents is essential to improve quality of care. In England, inconsistencies in how NHS secondary care trusts reviewed, investigated and shared learning from deaths, resulted in the introduction of national guidance on ‘Learning from Deaths’ (LfDs) in 2017. This guidance provides a ‘framework for identifying, reporting, investigating and learning from deaths’. Amendments to NHS Quality Account regulations, legally require NHS trusts in England to report quantitative and qualitative information relating to patient deaths annually. The programme intended trusts would share this learning and take measurable action to prevent future deaths. / Method: We undertook qualitative and quantitative secondary data analysis of all NHS secondary care trust LfDs reports within their 2017/18 Quality Accounts, to review how organisations are using the LfDs programme to learn from and prevent, potentially preventable deaths. / Results: All statutory elements of LfDs reporting were reported by 98 out of 222 (44%) trusts. The percentage of deaths judged more likely than not due to problems in healthcare was between 0% and 13%. The majority of trusts (89%) reported lessons learnt; the most common learning theme was poor communication. 106 out of 222 trusts (48%) have shared or plan to share the learning within their own organisation. The majority of trusts (86%) reported actions taken and 47% discussed or had a plan for assessment of impact. 37 out of 222 trusts (17%) mentioned involvement of bereaved families. / Conclusions: The wide variation in reporting demonstrates that some trusts have engaged fully with LfDs, while other trusts appear to have disengaged with the programme. This may reveal a disparity in organisational learning and patient safety culture which could result in inequity for bereaved families. Many themes identified from the LfD reports have previously been identified in national and international reports and inquiries. Further work is needed to strengthen the LfDs programme