Search

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed views, understanding and current practices of maternity professionals in relation to impacted fetal head at cesarean birth, with the aim of informing a standardized definition, clinical management approaches and training. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a survey consultation including the range of maternity professionals who attend emergency cesarean births in the UK. Thiscovery, an online research and development platform, was used to ask closed-ended and free-text questions. Simple descriptive analysis was undertaken for closed-ended responses, and content analysis for categorization and counting of free-text responses. Main outcome measures included the count and percentage of participants selecting predefined options on clinical definition, multi-professional team approach, communication, clinical management and training. RESULTS: In total, 419 professionals took part, including 144 midwives, 216 obstetricians and 59 other clinicians (eg anesthetists). We found high levels of agreement on the components of an impacted fetal head definition (79% of obstetricians) and the need for use of a multi-professional approach to management (95% of all participants). Over 70% of obstetricians deemed nine techniques acceptable for management of impacted fetal head, but some obstetricians also considered potentially unsafe practices appropriate. Access to professional training in management of impacted fetal head was highly variable, with over 80% of midwives reporting no training in vaginal disimpaction. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate agreement on the components of a standardized definition for impacted fetal head, and a need and appetite for multi-professional training. These findings can inform a program of work to improve care, including use of structured management algorithms and simulation-based multi-professional training.

BACKGROUND: Serious incident (SI) investigations aim to identify factors that caused or could have caused serious patient harm. This study aimed to use the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) to characterise the contributory factors identified in SI investigation reports. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of 126 investigation reports from a multi-site NHS trust. We used a HFACS-based framework that was modified through inductive analysis of the data. RESULTS: Using the modified HFACS framework, 'unsafe actions' were the most commonly identified hierarchical level of contributory factors in investigation reports, which were identified 282 times across 99 (79%) incidents. 'Preconditions to unsafe acts' (identified 223 times in 91 (72%) incidents) included miscommunication and environmental factors. Supervisory factors were identified 73 times across 40 (31%) incidents, and organisational factors 115 times across 59 (47%) incidents. We identified 'extra-organisational factors' as a new HFACS level, though it was infrequently described. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of SI investigation reports using a modified HFACS framework allows important insights into what investigators view as contributory factors. We found an emphasis on human error but little engagement with why it occurs. Better investigations will require independence and professionalisation of investigators, human factors expertise, and a systems approach.

Funder: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), INTRODUCTION: At least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received the following approvals: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made available to patients and the public, the funders, stakeholders in the IAPT services and other researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93895792.

Funder: Wellcome Trust; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Funder: NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow, Background Workplace programmes to test staff for asymptomatic COVID-19 infection have become common, but raise a number of ethical challenges. In this article, we report the findings of a consultation that informed the development of an ethical framework for organisational decision-making about such programmes. Methods We conducted a mixed-method consultation – a survey and semi-structured interviews during November–December 2020 in a UK case study organisation that had introduced asymptomatic testing for all staff working on-site in its buildings. Analysis of closed-ended survey data was conducted descriptively. An analysis approach based on the Framework Method was used for the open-ended survey responses and interview data. The analyses were then integrated to facilitate systematic analysis across themes. Inferences were based on the integrated findings and combined with other inputs (literature review, ethical analysis, legal and public health guidance, expert discussions) to develop an ethical framework. Results The consultation involved 61 staff members from the case study organisation (50 survey respondents and 11 interview participants). There was strong support for the asymptomatic testing programme: 90% of the survey respondents viewed it as helpful or very helpful. Open-ended survey responses and interviews gave insight into participants’ concerns, including those relating to goal drift, risk of false negatives, and potential negative impacts for household members and people whose roles lacked contractual and financial stability. Integration of the consultation findings and the other inputs identified the importance of a whole-system approach with appropriate support for the key control measure of isolation following positive tests. The need to build trust in the testing programme, for example through effective communication from leaders, was also emphasised. Conclusions The consultation, together with other inputs, informed an ethical framework intended to support employers. The framework may support organisational decision-making in areas ranging from design and operation of the programme through to choices about participation. The framework is likely to benefit from further consultation and refinement in new settings.

Supplemental Material for A qualitative study of the dynamics of access to remote antenatal care through the lens of candidacy by Lisa Hinton, Karolina Kuberska, Francesca Dakin, Nicola Boydell, Graham Martin, Tim Draycott, Cathy Winter, Richard J McManus, Lucy Chappell, Sanhita Chakrabarti, Elizabeth Howland, Janet Willars, and Mary Dixon-Woods in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Peer reviewed: True, Funder: Health Foundation; FundRef: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000724, OBJECTIVE: The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice. METHODS: We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services. RESULTS: Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.