A qualitative thematic review:emotional labour in healthcare settings

Aims. To identify the range of emotional labour employed by healthcare professionals in a healthcare setting and implications of this for staff and organisations. Background. In a healthcare setting, emotional labour is the act or skill involved in the caring role, in recognizing the emotions of others and in managing our own. Design. A thematic synthesis of qualitative studies which included emotion work theory in their design, employed qualitative methods and were situated in a healthcare setting. The reporting of the review was informed by the ENTREQ framework. Data sources. 6 databases were searched between 1979–2014. Review methods. Studies were included if they were qualitative, employed emotion work theory and were written in English. Papers were appraised and themes identified. Thirteen papers were included. Results. The reviewed studies identified four key themes: (1) The professionalization of emotion and gendered aspects of emotional labour; (2) Intrapersonal aspects of emotional labour – how healthcare workers manage their own emotions in the workplace; (3) Collegial and organisational sources of emotional labour; (4) Support and training needs of professionals Conclusion. This review identified gendered, personal, organisational, collegial and socio-cultural sources of and barriers to emotional labour in healthcare settings. The review highlights the importance of ensuring emotional labour is recognized and valued, ensuring support and supervision is in place to enable staff to cope with the varied emotional demands of their work

Medication decision making and patient outcomes in GP, nurse and pharmacist prescriber consultations

UNLABELLED: Aim The aims of this study were twofold: (a) to explore whether specific components of shared decision making were present in consultations involving nurse prescribers (NPs), pharmacist prescribers (PPs) and general practitioners (GPs) and (b) to relate these to self-reported patient outcomes including satisfaction, adherence and patient perceptions of practitioner empathy.BACKGROUND: There are a range of ways for defining and measuring the process of concordance, or shared decision making as it relates to decisions about medicines. As a result, demonstrating a convincing link between shared decision making and patient benefit is challenging. In the United Kingdom, nurses and pharmacists can now take on a prescribing role, engaging in shared decision making. Given the different professional backgrounds of GPs, NPs and PPs, this study sought to explore the process of shared decision making across these three prescriber groups.METHODS: Analysis of audio-recordings of consultations in primary care in South England between patients and GPs, NPs and PPs. Analysis of patient questionnaires completed post consultation. Findings A total of 532 consultations were audio-recorded with 20 GPs, 19 NPs and 12 PPs. Prescribing decisions occurred in 421 (79%). Patients were given treatment options in 21% (102/482) of decisions, the prescriber elicited the patient's treatment preference in 18% (88/482) and the patient expressed a treatment preference in 24% (118/482) of decisions. PPs were more likely to ask for the patient's preference about their treatment regimen (χ 2=6.6, P=0.036, Cramer's V=0.12) than either NPs or GPs. Of the 275 patient questionnaires, 192(70%) could be matched with a prescribing decision. NP patients had higher satisfaction levels than patients of GPs or PPs. More time describing treatment options was associated with increased satisfaction, adherence and greater perceived practitioner empathy. While defining, measuring and enabling the process of shared decision making remains challenging, it may have patient benefit

Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan

Background:&nbsp;Knowledge translation strategies are an approach to increase the use of evidence within policy and practice decision-making contexts. In clinical and health service contexts, knowledge translation strategies have focused on individual behavior change, however the multi-system context of public health requires a multi-level, multi-strategy approach. This paper describes the design of and implementation plan for a knowledge translation intervention for public health decision making in local government. Methods: Four preliminary research studies contributed findings to the design of the intervention: a systematic review of knowledge translation intervention effectiveness research, a scoping study of knowledge translation perspectives and relevant theory literature, a survey of the local government public health workforce, and a study of the use of evidence-informed decision-making for public health in local government. A logic model was then developed to represent the putative pathways between intervention inputs, processes, and outcomes operating between individual-, organizational-, and system-level strategies. This formed the basis of the intervention plan. Results: The systematic and scoping reviews identified that effective and promising strategies to increase access to research evidence require an integrated intervention of skill development, access to a knowledge broker, resources and tools for evidence-informed decision making, and networking for information sharing. Interviews and survey analysis suggested that the intervention needs to operate at individual and organizational levels, comprising workforce development, access to evidence, and regular contact with a knowledge broker to increase access to intervention evidence; develop skills in appraisal and integration of evidence; strengthen networks; and explore organizational factors to build organizational cultures receptive to embedding evidence in practice. The logic model incorporated these inputs and strategies with a set of outcomes to measure the intervention\u27s effectiveness based on the theoretical frameworks, evaluation studies, and decision-maker experiences. Conclusion: Documenting the design of and implementation plan for this knowledge translation intervention provides a transparent, theoretical, and practical approach to a complex intervention. It provides significant insights into how practitioners might engage with evidence in public health decision making. While this intervention model was designed for the local government context, it is likely to be applicable and generalizable across sectors and settings.</div

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

The rise of non-medical prescribing and medical dominance

This article contributes to the continuing debate on the professional dominance of medicine given the rising number of professions allied to medicine that now have the legal authority to prescribe and could potentially threaten this dominance. The key questions addressed are whether non-medical prescribers represent a threat to the dominance of medicine and if they do not, what has mediated doctors' response to these newer prescribers such that they are able to retain dominance? Drawing on Abbott's work on jurisdictional claims, this paper explores how the rise of non-medical prescribing has led to competing jurisdictional claims over prescribing between doctors and non-medical prescribers. This paper particularly focuses on pharmacist prescribing and how competing jurisdictional claims could be settled. It discusses why the profession of medicine is still dominant and the importance of professional ideologies to influencing the outcome of competing jurisdictional claims. The professional ideology of medicine has shifted from valuing prescribing to valuing the indeterminacy involved in complex clinical decision making, illustrating medicine's ability to adapt, retain dominance and maintain cultural authority over clinical knowledge. In contrast, pharmacist prescribers' professional ideology involves having specialist medicines expertise and being safe prescribers. Pharmacists draw upon this ideology to argue their unique competence as a prescriber: given their pharmacological knowledge and attention to detail which facilitates their role as clinical checker or ‘safety net’ on prescribing. However, medicine's cultural authority in clinical decision-making enables, when there are competing jurisdictional claims over prescribing, for doctors to retain intellectual jurisdiction: control over the cognitive knowledge base involved in prescribing and clinical decision making. Could this be eroded to a weaker form of control involving advisory jurisdiction? Should political developments further favour the widespread acceptance of prescribing as a core part of the pharmacist's role, an erosion to advisory jurisdiction may yet be possible

A comparison of GP, pharmacist and nurse prescriber responses to patients' emotional cues and concerns in primary care consultations

Objective: Recognising patients' cues and concerns is an important part of patient centred care. With nurses and pharmacists now able to prescribe in the UK, this study compared the frequency, nature, and professionals' responses to patient cues and concerns in consultations with GPs, nurse prescribers and pharmacist prescribers. Methods: Audio-recording and analysis of primary care consultations in England between patients and nurse prescribers, pharmacist prescribers and GPs. Recordings were coded for the number of cues and concerns raised, cue or concern type and whether responded to positively or missed. Results: A total of 528 consultations were audio-recorded with 51 professionals: 20 GPs, 19 nurse prescribers and 12 pharmacist prescribers. Overall there were 3.5 cues or concerns per consultation, with no difference between prescriber groups. Pharmacist prescribers responded positively to 81% of patient's cues and concerns with nurse prescribers responding positively to 72% and GPs 53% (PhP v NP: U= 7453, z= -2.1, p= 0.04; PhP v GP: U= 5463, z= -5.9, p< 0.0001; NP v GP: U= 12,070, z= -4.9, p< 0.0001). Conclusion: This evidence suggests that pharmacists and nurses are responding supportively to patients' cues and concerns. Practice implications: The findings support the importance of patient-centredness in training new prescribers and their potential in providing public health roles. © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd

Cost to the patient or cost to the healthcare system? Which one matters the most for GP prescribing decisions? A UK-Italy comparison

Charges for health services help contain healthcare costs. Despite showing that medicine consumption decreases when charges are increased research has not yet identified how doctors 'manage' the charge system to help patients who cannot afford treatment. This paper describes how the charge system influences the prescribing decisions of Italian and UK physicians. The data are from the qualitative stage of a multi-stage study exploring cost related influences on GP and patient decision-making regarding medicine use. The analysis presented is based on transcripts of focus groups conducted with general practitioners. To help patients who have difficulties affording their medication Italian GPs rely on a smaller number of cost reduction strategies compared to their UK counterparts. They use 'samples' left by pharmaceutical companies, or diagnose patients with pathologies that allow exemption. Occasionally they recommend some delay or change therapy to a cheaper but less effective alternative. Italian and UK GPs have firm views about patients abusing the NHS and believe costs to the system are as important as costs to the individual patient. Prescribing budgets were not viewed in a positive light by Italian GPs. Due to the nature of the charge system in Italy GPs there are able to choose a reimbursable product for patients, so have less need than UK doctors to look for other means of reducing costs. Conversely, the UK GPs have developed a large number of cost reduction strategies, probably because of the charge system itself and the relatively high charges incurred by patient