Search

Background High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it. Methods This UK- wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free- text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system- level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers. Findings Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/ stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person- centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety. Conclusions This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical tools for use in practice--such as medicine reconciliation charts, diagnosis support tools and track- and- trigger charts--are endemic in healthcare, but relatively little attention is given to how to optimise their design. User- centred design approaches and co- design principles offer potential for improving usability and acceptability of clinical tools, but limited practical guidance is currently available. We propose a framework (FRamework for co- dESign of Clinical practice tOols or 'FRESCO') offering practical guidance based on user- centred methods and co- design principles, organised in five steps: (1) establish a multidisciplinary advisory group; (2) develop initial drafts of the prototype; (3) conduct think- aloud usability evaluations; (4) test in clinical simulations; (5) generate a final prototype informed by workshops. We applied the framework in a case study to support co- design of a prototype track- and- trigger chart for detecting and responding to possible fetal deterioration during labour. This started with establishing an advisory group of 22 members with varied expertise. Two initial draft prototypes were developed--one based on a version produced by national bodies, and the other with similar content but designed using human factors principles. Think- aloud usability evaluations of these prototypes were conducted with 15 professionals, and the findings used to inform co-design of an improved draft prototype. This was tested with 52 maternity professionals from five maternity units through clinical simulations. Analysis of these simulations and six workshops were used to co-design the final prototype to the point of readiness for large- scale testing. By codifying existing methods and principles into a single framework, FRESCO supported mobilisation of the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to co- design a prototype track- and- trigger chart in an area of pressing service need. Subject to further evaluation, the framework has potential for application beyond the area of clinical practice in which it was applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Problems in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) remain a major area of preventable harm. Poor understanding of the range of influences on safety may have hindered improvement. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we sought to characterise the everyday practice of CTG monitoring and the work systems within which it takes place, with the goal of identifying potential sources of risk. Methods Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) experts and social scientists conducted 325 hours of observations and 23 interviews in three maternity units in the UK, focusing on how CTG tasks were undertaken, the influences on this work and the cultural and organisational features of work settings. HF/E analysis was based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. Social science analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results CTG monitoring can be understood as a complex sociotechnical activity, with tasks, people, tools and technology, and organisational and external factors all combining to affect safety. Fetal heart rate patterns need to be recorded and interpreted correctly. Systems are also required for seeking the opinions of others, determining whether the situation warrants concern, escalating concerns and mobilising response. These processes may be inadequately designed or function suboptimally, and may be further complicated by staffing issues, equipment and ergonomics issues, and competing and frequently changing clinical guidelines. Practice may also be affected by variable standards and workflows, variations in clinical competence, teamwork and situation awareness, and the ability to communicate concerns freely. Conclusions CTG monitoring is an inherently collective and sociotechnical practice. Improving it will require accounting for complex system interdependencies, rather than focusing solely on discrete factors such as individual technical proficiency in interpreting traces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although problems that impair task completion - known as operational failures - are an important focus of concern in primary care, they have remained little studied.Aim: To quantify the time GPs spend on different activities during clinical sessions; to identify the number of operational failures they encounter; and to characterise the nature of operational failures and their impact for GPs.Design and Setting: Mixed-method triangulation study with 61 GPs in 28 NHS general practices in England from December 2018 to December 2019.Method: Time-motion methods, ethnographic observations, and interviews were used.Results: Time-motion data on 7679 GP tasks during 238 hours of practice in 61 clinical sessions suggested that operational failures were responsible for around 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5% to 5.4%) of all tasks undertaken by GPs and accounted for 3.9% (95% CI = 3.2% to 4.5%) of clinical time. However, qualitative data showed that time-motion methods, which depend on pre-programmed categories, substantially underestimated operational failures. Qualitative data also enabled further characterisation of operational failures, extending beyond those measured directly in the time-motion data (for example, interruptions, deficits in equipment/supplies, and technology) to include problems linked to GPs' coordination role and weaknesses in work systems and processes. The impacts of operational failures were highly consequential for GPs' experiences of work.Conclusion: GPs experience frequent operational failures, disrupting patient care, impairing experiences of work, and imposing burden in an already pressurised system. This better understanding of the nature and impact of operational failures allows for identification of targets for improvement and indicates the need for coordinated action to support GPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2013, the English National Health Service launched the policy of 7- day services to improve care quality and outcomes for weekend emergency admissions. Aims To determine whether the quality of care of emergency medical admissions is worse at weekends, and whether this has changed during implementation of 7- day services. Methods Using data from 20 acute hospital Trusts in England, we performed randomly selected structured case record reviews of patients admitted to hospital as emergencies at weekends and on weekdays between financial years 2012--2013 and 2016--2017. Senior doctor ('specialist') involvement was determined from annual point prevalence surveys. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical errors. Secondary outcomes included error- related adverse event rates, global quality of care and four indicators of good practice. Results Seventy- nine clinical reviewers reviewed 4000 admissions, 800 in duplicate. Errors, adverse events and care quality were not significantly different between weekend and weekday admissions, but all improved significantly between epochs, particularly errors most likely influenced by doctors (clinical assessment, diagnosis, treatment, prescribing and communication): error rate OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; adverse event OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.69; care quality OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; all adjusted for age, sex and ethnicity. Postadmission in- hospital care processes improved between epochs and were better for weekend admissions (vital signs with National Early Warning Score and timely specialist review). Preadmission processes in the community were suboptimal at weekends and deteriorated between epochs (fewer family doctor referrals, more patients with chronic disease or palliative care designation). Conclusions and implications Hospital care quality of emergency medical admissions is not worse at weekends and has improved during implementation of the 7- day services policy. Causal pathways for the weekend effect may extend into the prehospital setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of 'what good looks like'. Objective We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. Methods We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non- participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. Results We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem- sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. Conclusions This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework--For Us--that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital- based maternity units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]