Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings

Am I safe? An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Vulnerability as Experienced by Patients With Complications Following Surgery

Abdominal surgery carries with it risks of complications. Little is known about patients' experiences of post-surgical deterioration. There is a real need to understand the psychosocial as well as the biological aspects of deterioration in order to improve care and outcomes for patients. Drawing on in-depth interviews with seven abdominal surgery survivors, we present an idiographic account of participants' experiences, situating their contribution to safety within their personal lived experiences and meaning-making of these episodes of deterioration. Our analysis reveals an overarching group experiential theme of vulnerability in relation to participants' experiences of complications after abdominal surgery. This encapsulates the uncertainty of the situation all the participants found themselves in, and the nature and seriousness of their health conditions. The extent of participants' vulnerability is revealed by detailing how they made sense of their experience, how they negotiated feelings of (un)safety drawing on their relationships with family and staff and the legacy of feelings they were left with when their expectations of care (care as imagined) did not meet the reality of their experiences (care as received). The participants' experiences highlight the power imbalance between patients and professionals in terms of whose knowledge counts within the hospital context. The study reveals the potential for epistemic injustice to arise when patients' concerns are ignored or dismissed. Our data has implications for designing strategies to enable escalation of care, both in terms of supporting staff to deliver compassionate care, and in strengthening patient and family involvement in rescue processes.

Exploring the potential for introducing home monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy into maternity care: current views and experiences of staff-a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

One in 20 women are affected by pre-eclampsia, a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity, death and premature birth worldwide. Diagnosis is made from monitoring blood pressure (BP) and urine and symptoms at antenatal visits after 20 weeks of pregnancy. There are no randomised data from contemporary trials to guide the efficacy of self-monitoring of BP (SMBP) in pregnancy. We explored the perspectives of maternity staff to understand the context and health system challenges to introducing and implementing SMBP in maternity care, ahead of undertaking a trial.

DESIGN

Exploratory study using a qualitative approach.

SETTING

Eight hospitals, English National Health Service.

PARTICIPANTS

Obstetricians, community and hospital midwives, pharmacists, trainee doctors (n=147).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with site research team members and clinicians, interviews and focus group discussions. Rapid content and thematic analysis undertaken.

RESULTS

The main themes to emerge around SMBP include (1) different BP changes in pregnancy, (2) reliability and accuracy of BP monitoring, (3) anticipated impact of SMBP on women, (4) anticipated impact of SMBP on the antenatal care system, (5) caution, uncertainty and evidence, (6) concerns over action/inaction and patient safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential impact of SMBP on maternity services is profound although nuanced. While introducing SMBP does not reduce the responsibility clinicians have for women's health, it may enhance the responsibilities and agency of pregnant women, and introduces a new set of relationships into maternity care. This is a new space for reconfiguration of roles, mutual expectations and the relationships between and responsibilities of healthcare providers and women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03334149.

Acute clinical deterioration and consumer escalation in the hospital setting: A literature review

BACKGROUND

Consumer escalation systems that allow patients and/or their family/carers to escalate concerns about clinical deterioration have been proposed as a way of enhancing patient safety. However, evidence to guide implementation or to support system effectiveness remains unclear.

AIM

To critically evaluate the current evidence surrounding consumer escalation within the context of clinical deterioration to identify the strengths, weaknesses and gaps in existing knowledge, essential themes, and directions for further investigation.

METHOD

Database searches were conducted within Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for articles directly relating to consumer escalation systems published, in English, within the previous 10 year-period. Titles and abstracts were screened and relevant full-text articles included. Content was examined to identify breadth of knowledge, essential themes, and the effectiveness of current systems.

RESULTS

27 articles, containing a mixture of both quantitative and qualitative findings, were identified. Within the context of limitations in the overall depth and quality of current evidence, four key areas (relating to consumer understanding and awareness of clinical deterioration, confidence and ability to escalate concerns, education, and staff attitudes) were identified as potentially critical to the foundation, functioning, and success of consumer escalation systems. Consumer escalation processes may contribute positive effects beyond mortality rates; however, an agreed method of assessing effectiveness remains undetermined.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of consumer escalation processes to achieve their underlying goals is still to be adequately assessed. Further research is required to inform how to best implement, support and optimise consumer escalation systems.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews.

METHODS

Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews.

RESULTS

Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care.

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.