Dataset Information

Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Evaluate the implementation of Hubs providing access to psychological support for health and social care keyworkers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

Qualitative interviews informed by normalisation process theory to understand how the Hub model became embedded into normal practice, and factors that disrupted normalisation of this approach.

Setting

Three Resilience Hubs in the North of England.

Participants

Hub staff, keyworkers who accessed Hub support (Hub clients), keyworkers who had not accessed a Hub, and wider stakeholders involved in the provision of staff support within the health and care system (N=63).

Results

Hubs were generally seen as an effective way of supporting keyworkers, and Hub clients typically described very positive experiences. Flexibility and adaptability to local needs were strongly valued. Keyworkers accessed support when they understood the offer, valuing a confidential service that was separate from their organisation. Confusion about how Hubs differed from other support prevented some from enrolling. Beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and systemic issues prevented keyworkers from valuing mental health support. Lack of support from managers discouraged keyworker engagement with Hubs. Black, Asian and minority ethnic keyworkers impacted by racism felt that the Hubs did not always meet their needs.

Conclusions

Hubs were seen as a valuable, responsive and distinct part of the health and care system. Findings highlight the importance of improving promotion and accessibility of Hubs, and continuation of confidential Hub support. Policy implications for the wider health and care sector include the central importance of genuine promotion of and value placed on mental health support by health and social care management, and the creation of psychologically safe work environments. Diversity and cultural competency training is needed to better reach under-represented communities. Findings are consistent with the international literature, therefore, likely to have applicability outside of the current context.

SUBMITTER: Allsopp K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10450134 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory.

Allsopp Kate K Varese Filippo F French Paul P White Hannah H Chung Priscilla P Hassan Alysha A AA Wright Sally-Anne SA Young Ellie E Barrett Alan A Bhutani Gita G McGuirk Katherine K Huntley Fay F Sarsam May M Ten Cate Hein H Watson Ruth R Willbourn Jenni J Hind Daniel D

BMJ open 20230823 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>Evaluate the implementation of Hubs providing access to psychological support for health and social care keyworkers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative interviews informed by normalisation process theory to understand how the Hub model became embedded into normal practice, and factors that disrupted normalisation of this approach.<h4>Setting</h4>Three Resilience Hubs in the North of England.<h4>Participants</h4>Hub staff, keyworkers who accessed Hub su ...[more]

PMID: 37612138

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Global evidence suggests a range of benefits for introducing electronic health record (EHR) systems to improve patient care. However, implementing EHR within healthcare organisations is complex and, in the United Kingdom (UK), uptake has been slow. More research is needed to explore factors influencing successful implementation. This study explored staff expectations for change and outcome following procurement of a commercial EHR system by a large academic acute NHS hospital in the UK. METHODS:Qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 members of hospital staff who represented a variety of user groups across different specialities within the hospital. The four components of Normalisation Process Theory (Coherence, Cognitive participation, Collective action and Reflexive monitoring) provided a theoretical framework to interpret and report study findings. RESULTS:Health professionals had a common understanding for the rationale for EHR implementation (Coherence). There was variation in willingness to engage with and invest time into EHR (Cognitive participation) at an individual, professional and organisational level. Collective action (whether staff feel able to use the EHR) was influenced by context and perceived user-involvement in EHR design and planning of the implementation strategy. When appraising EHR (Reflexive monitoring), staff anticipated short and long-term benefits. Staff perceived that quality and safety of patient care would be improved with EHR implementation, but that these benefits may not be immediate. Some staff perceived that use of the system may negatively impact patient care. The findings indicate that preparedness for EHR use could mitigate perceived threats to the quality and safety of care. CONCLUSIONS:Health professionals looked forward to reaping the benefits from EHR use. Variations in level of engagement suggest early components of the implementation strategy were effective, and that more work was needed to involve users in preparing them for use. A clearer understanding as to how staff groups and services differentially interact with the EHR as they go about their daily work was required. The findings may inform other hospitals and healthcare systems on actions that can be taken prior to EHR implementation to reduce concerns for quality and safety of patient care and improve the chance of successful implementation.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine patient and staff views, experiences and acceptability of a UK primary care online consultation system and ask how the system and its implementation may be improved.DesignMixed-method evaluation of a primary care e-consultation system.SettingPrimary care practices in South West England.MethodsQualitative interviews with 23 practice staff in six practices. Patient survey data for 756 e-consultations from 36 practices, with free-text survey comments from 512 patients, were analysed thematically. Anonymised patients' records were abstracted for 485 e-consultations from eight practices, including consultation types and outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative data. Analysis of implementation and the usage of the e-consultation system were informed by: (1) normalisation process theory, (2) a framework that illustrates how e-consultations were co-produced and (3) patients' and staff touchpoints.ResultsWe found different expectations between patients and staff on how to use e-consultations 'appropriately'. While some patients used the system to try and save time for themselves and their general practitioners (GPs), some used e-consultations when they could not get a timely face-to-face appointment. Most e-consultations resulted in either follow-on phone (32%) or face-to-face appointments (38%) and GPs felt that this duplicated their workload. Patient satisfaction of the system was high, but a minority were dissatisfied with practice communication about their e-consultation.ConclusionsWhere both patients and staff interact with technology, it is in effect 'co-implemented'. How patients used e-consultations impacted on practice staff's experiences and appraisal of the system. Overall, the e-consultation system studied could improve access for some patients, but in its current form, it was not perceived by practices as creating sufficient efficiencies to warrant financial investment. We illustrate how this e-consultation system and its implementation can be improved, through mapping the co-production of e-consultations through touchpoints.

Project description:BackgroundEvaluations of interventions to improve implementation of guidelines have failed to produce a clear pattern of results favouring a particular method. While implementation depends on clinicians and managers changing a variety of behaviours, psychological theories of behaviour and behaviour change are seldom used to try to understand difficulties in implementation or to develop interventions to overcome them.ObjectivesThis study applied psychological theory to examine explanations for difficulties in implementation. It used a theoretical framework derived from an interdisciplinary consensus exercise to code interviews across 11 theoretical domains. The focus of the study was a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's Schizophrenia guideline recommendation that family intervention should be offered to the families of people with schizophrenia.MethodsParticipants were recruited from community mental health teams from three United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) Trusts; 20 members (social workers, nurses, team managers, psychologists, and psychiatrists) participated. Semi-structured interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Interview questions were based on the theoretical domains and addressed respondents' knowledge, attitudes and opinions regarding the guideline. Two researchers independently coded the transcript segments from each interview that were related to each theoretical domain. A score of 1 indicated that the transcript segments relating to the domain did not appear to contain description of difficulties in implementation of the family therapy guidelines; similarly a score of 0.5 indicated possible difficulties and a score of 0 indicated definite difficulties.ResultsCoding respondents' answers to questions related to the three domains 'beliefs about consequences,' 'social/professional role and identity,' and 'motivation' produced the three highest total scores indicating that factors relating to these domains were unlikely to constitute difficulties in implementation. 'Environmental context and resources' was the lowest scoring domain, with 'Emotion' scoring the second lowest, suggesting that these were likely to be areas for considering intervention. The two main resources identified as problems were time and training. The emotions that appeared to potentially influence the offer of family therapy were self-doubt and fear.ConclusionThis exploratory study demonstrates an approach to developing a theoretical understanding of implementation difficulties.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence demonstrating the utility of using Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care settings, implementing them into routine practice is challenging. Most research has described barriers to, without explaining the causal mechanisms underpinning, implementation. Implementation theories explain how, why, and in which contexts specific relationships between barriers/enablers might improve implementation effectiveness but have rarely been used in palliative care outcomes research.AimTo use Normalisation Process Theory to understand and explain the causal mechanisms that underpin successful implementation of Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care.DesignExploratory qualitative study. Data collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using a Framework approach.Setting/participants63 healthcare professionals, across 11 specialist palliative care services, were purposefully sampled by role, experience, seniority, and settings (inpatient, outpatient/day therapy, home-based/community).ResultsSeven main themes were developed, representing the causal mechanisms and relationships underpinning successful implementation of outcome measures into routine practice. Themes were: Subjectivity of measures; Frequency and version of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale; Training, education, and peer support; Building and sustaining community engagement; Electronic system readiness; The art of communication; Reinforcing use through demonstrating value.ConclusionsRelationships influencing implementation resided at individual and organisational levels. Addressing these factors is key to driving the implementation of outcome measures into routine practice so that those using palliative care services can benefit from the systematic identification, management, and measurement of their symptoms and concerns. We provide key questions that are essential for those implementing and using outcome measures to consider in order to facilitate the integration of outcome measures into routine palliative care practice.

Project description:Ageing societies and a rising prevalence of dementia are associated with increasing demand for care home places. Monitoring technologies (e.g. bed-monitoring systems; wearable location-tracking devices) are appealing to care homes as they may enhance safety, increase resident freedom, and reduce staff burden. However, there are ethical concerns about the use of such technologies, and it is unclear how they might be implemented to deliver their full range of potential benefits.This study explored facilitators and barriers to the implementation of monitoring technologies in care homes.Embedded multiple-case study with qualitative methods.Three dementia-specialist care homes in North-West England.Purposive sample of 24 staff (including registered nurses, clinical specialists, senior managers and care workers), 9 relatives and 9 residents.36 semi-structured interviews with staff, relatives and residents; 175h of observation; resident care record review. Data collection informed by Normalization Process Theory, which seeks to account for how novel interventions become routine practice. Data analysed using Framework Analysis.Findings are presented under three main themes: 1. Reasons for using technologies: The primary reason for using monitoring technologies was to enhance safety. This often seemed to override consideration of other potential benefits (e.g. increased resident freedom) or ethical concerns (e.g. resident privacy); 2. Ways in which technologies were implemented: Some staff, relatives and residents were not involved in discussions and decision-making, which seemed to limit understandings of the potential benefits and challenges from the technologies. Involvement of residents appeared particularly challenging. Staff highlighted the importance of training, but staff training appeared mainly informal which did not seem sufficient to ensure that staff fully understood the technologies; 3. Use of technologies in practice: Technologies generated frequent alarms that placed a burden upon staff, but staff were able to use their contextual knowledge to help to counter some of this burden. Some technologies offered a range of data-gathering capabilities, but were not always perceived as useful complements to practice.Implementation of monitoring technologies may be facilitated by the extent to which the technologies are perceived to enhance safety. Implementation may be further facilitated through greater involvement of all stakeholders in discussions and decision-making in order to deepen understandings about the range of potential benefits and challenges from the use of monitoring technologies. Staff training might need to move beyond functional instruction to include deeper exploration of anticipated benefits and the underlying rationale for using monitoring technologies.

Dataset Information

Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets