Valuing oral history in the community

CELT research project on changing practice through innovation and researchValuing Oral History in the community has developed out of the University���s involvement in the Wolverhampton Black and Ethnic Minority Experience Project (BEME). BEME is a collaborative project developed by a range of local community groups, the local council, colleges and the University which was established to document the experiences of members of the Black and Ethnic Minority communities in Wolverhampton in the post-war period. The rationale behind BEME was to create a community-based Oral History video archive and to promote the use of this unique source of community-based knowledge within a range of educational settings, to encourage curriculum development and enhance the learning experience of students. The aims of the innovation developed from my work with the BEME project, my own and others��� experiences of the value of doing Oral History with undergraduates and the desire to encourage the development of a more inclusive and diverse curriculum for the 21st century. Out of these aims three key objectives were developed

Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts. Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care. Results: The ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges. Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility. During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured. Conclusions: The COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study

BackgroundThe national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises.AimTo compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations.MethodA multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders.FindingsBoth countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community- and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised.ConclusionWe recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis of national and organisational responses and perspectives

Objectives: To explore stakeholders’ and national organisational perspectives on companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19, as part of the Achieving Safe and Personalised maternity care In Response to Epidemics (ASPIRE) COVID-19 UK study.Setting: Maternity care provision in England.Participants: Interviews were held with 26 national governmental, professional and service-user organisation leads (July–December 2020). Other data included public-facing outputs logged from 25 maternity Trusts (September/October 2020) and data extracted from 78 documents from eight key governmental, professional and service-user organisations that informed national maternity care guidance and policy (February–December 2020).Results: Six themes emerged: ‘Postcode lottery of care’ highlights variations in companionship and visiting practices between trusts/locations, ‘Confusion and stress around ‘rules’’ relates to a lack of and variable information concerning companionship/visiting, ‘Unintended consequences’ concerns the negative impacts of restricted companionship or visiting on women/birthing people and staff, ‘Need for flexibility’ highlights concerns about applying companionship and visiting policies irrespective of need, ‘‘Acceptable’ time for support’ highlights variations in when and if companionship was ‘allowed’ antenatally and intrapartum and ‘Loss of human rights for gain in infection control’ emphasises how a predominant focus on infection control was at a cost to psychological safety and human rights.Conclusions: Policies concerning companionship and visiting have been inconsistently applied within English maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In some cases, policies were not justified by the level of risk, and were applied indiscriminately regardless of need. There is an urgent need to determine how to sensitively and flexibly balance risks and benefits and optimise outcomes during the current and future crisis situations

Companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis of national and organisational responses and perspectives

Objectives: To explore stakeholders’ and national organisational perspectives on companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19, as part of the Achieving Safe and Personalised maternity care In Response to Epidemics (ASPIRE) COVID-19 UK study.Setting: Maternity care provision in England.Participants: Interviews were held with 26 national governmental, professional and service-user organisation leads (July–December 2020). Other data included public-facing outputs logged from 25 maternity Trusts (September/October 2020) and data extracted from 78 documents from eight key governmental, professional and service-user organisations that informed national maternity care guidance and policy (February–December 2020).Results: Six themes emerged: ‘Postcode lottery of care’ highlights variations in companionship and visiting practices between trusts/locations, ‘Confusion and stress around ‘rules’’ relates to a lack of and variable information concerning companionship/visiting, ‘Unintended consequences’ concerns the negative impacts of restricted companionship or visiting on women/birthing people and staff, ‘Need for flexibility’ highlights concerns about applying companionship and visiting policies irrespective of need, ‘‘Acceptable’ time for support’ highlights variations in when and if companionship was ‘allowed’ antenatally and intrapartum and ‘Loss of human rights for gain in infection control’ emphasises how a predominant focus on infection control was at a cost to psychological safety and human rights.Conclusions: Policies concerning companionship and visiting have been inconsistently applied within English maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In some cases, policies were not justified by the level of risk, and were applied indiscriminately regardless of need. There is an urgent need to determine how to sensitively and flexibly balance risks and benefits and optimise outcomes during the current and future crisis situations

Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts.MethodsWe undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care.ResultsThe ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges.Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility.During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care