Search

PurposeTo conduct a process evaluation of a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours. Here using qualitative behavioural analyses we report how the SRF worked.MethodsPrior to a multisite non-randomised trial of its effectiveness, the SRF was coded in relation to its putative behaviour change content (using the theoretical domains framework (TDF), the behaviour change wheel (BCW) and the behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTTv1)). After the SRF had been used, through the peak of the Alpha variant, we conducted in-depth interviews from diverse professional staff (N=39) from a heterogeneous purposive sub-sample of hospital trial sites (n=5/14). Deductive thematic analysis explored participants’ accounts of using the SRF according to its putative content in addition to inductive exploration of their experiences.ResultsWe found empirical support for the putative theoretical mechanisms of ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’, as well as for intervention functions of ‘Education’ and ‘Persuasion’ and ‘Enablement’, and for particular BCTs ‘1.2 Problem solving’, ‘2.6 Biofeedback’, ‘2.7 Feedback on outcomes of behaviour’, and ‘7.1 Prompts and cues’. Most participants found the SRF useful and believed it could shape IPC behaviour.ConclusionsOur process evaluation of the SRF provided granular and general support for the SRF working to change IPC behaviours. Our analysis highlighted useful SRF content. However, we also note that, without complementary work on systematically embedding the SRF within routine practice and wider hospital systems, it may not reach its full potential to reduce nosocomial infection.What is already known on this subject?Health psychology remains under-exploited within infection prevention and control (IPC) interventionsFor genomic insights to be understood by a range of health care professionals and elicit changes in IPC behaviour, ways of translating complex genomic insights into a simple format are needed. These simple translation tools can be described as whole genome sequence report forms (SRFs)Nothing is currently known about the use of SRFs, for SARS-CoV-2 or other infections, to change hospital-based IPC behaviour.Health psychological tools such as the behaviour change wheel (BCW), the theoretical domains framework (TDF), and the behaviour change technique taxonomy (BCTTv1) are widely used to develop behaviour change interventions but are rarely used to evaluate themContemporary guidance on conducting process evaluations highlights the value of explicitly theorising how an intervention is intended to work before systematically examining how it actually worked in practiceWhat does this study add?The paper presents a novel worked example of using tools from health psychology within a qualitative process evaluation of using an SRF during the COVID-19 pandemic in UK hospitalsThis paper is the first to report how people experienced using whole genome sequence report forms (SRFs) in order to change hospital-based IPC behaviourWe provide qualitative evidence detailing empirical support for much of the SRF’s putative content, including casual mechanisms ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’, intervention functions such as ‘Education’ and ‘Enablement’, and for particular BCTs: ‘1.2 Problem solving’, ‘2.6 Biofeedback’, ‘2.7 Feedback on outcomes of behaviour’, and ‘7.1 Prompts and cues’

IntroductionConsistent with World Health Organization (WHO) advice [1], Public Health England (PHE) recommends that healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) should use fluid resistant surgical masks type IIR (FRSMs) as respiratory protective equipment (RPE), unless aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are being undertaken or are likely, when a filtering face piece 3 (FFP3) respirator should be used [2]. In recent guidance, an FFP3 respirator is recommended if “an unacceptable risk of transmission remains following rigorous application of the hierarchy of control” [3]. Conversely, guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19 should use an N95 or higher level respirator [4]. WHO guidance suggests that a respirator, such as FFP3, may be used for HCWs in the absence of AGPs if availability or cost is not an issue [1].A recent systematic review undertaken for PHE concluded that: “patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are breathing, talking or coughing generate both respiratory droplets and aerosols, but FRSM (and where required, eye protection) are considered to provide adequate staff protection” [5]. Nevertheless, FFP3 respirators are more effective in preventing aerosol transmission than FRSMs, and observational data suggests that they may improve protection for HCWs [6]. It has therefore been suggested that respirators should be considered as a means of affording the best available protection [7], and some organisations have decided to provide FFP3 (or equivalent) respirators to HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients, despite a lack of mandate from local or national guidelines [8].Data from the HCW testing programme at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUHNFT) during the first wave of the UK severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic indicated a higher incidence of infection amongst HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, compared with those who did not [9]. Subsequent studies have confirmed this observation [10, 11]. This disparity persisted at CUHNFT in December 2020, despite control measures consistent with PHE guidance and audits indicating good compliance. The CUHNFT infection control committee therefore implemented a change of RPE for staff on “red” (COVID-19) wards from FRSMs to FFP3 respirators. In this study, we analyse the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs before and after this transition.