scholarly journals Getting Performance Metrics Right: A Qualitative Study of Staff Experiences Implementing and Measuring Practice Transformation

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (S2) ◽  
pp. 607-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devan Kansagara ◽  
Anaïs Tuepker ◽  
Sandy Joos ◽  
Christina Nicolaidis ◽  
Eleni Skaperdas ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Meghan M. Galligan ◽  
Mary Haggerty ◽  
Heather A. Wolfe ◽  
Dawn Debrocco ◽  
Katherine Kellom ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVES Clinical event debriefing (CED) can improve patient care and outcomes, but little is known about CED across inpatient settings, and participant experiences have not been well described. In this qualitative study, we sought to characterize and compare staff experiences with CED in 2 hospital units, with a goal of generating recommendations for a hospital-wide debriefing program. METHODS We conducted 32 semistructured interviews with clinical staff who attended a CED in the previous week. We explored experiences with CED, with a focus on barriers and facilitators. We used content analysis with constant comparative coding to understand priorities identified by participants. We used inductive reasoning to develop a set of CED practice recommendations to match participant priorities. RESULTS Three primary themes emerged related to CED barriers and facilitators. (1) Factors affecting attendance: most respondents voiced a need for frontline staff inclusion in CED, but they also cited competing clinical duties and scheduling conflicts as barriers. (2) Factors affecting participant engagement: respondents described factors that influence participant engagement in reflective discussion. They described that the CED leader must cultivate a psychologically safe environment in which participants feel empowered to speak up, free from judgment. (3) Factors affecting learning and systems improvement: respondents emphasized that the CED group should generate a plan for improvement with accountable stakeholders. Collectively, these priorities propose several recommendations for CED practice, including frontline staff inclusion. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we propose recommendations for CED that are derived from first-hand participant experiences. Future study will explore implementation of CED practice recommendations.


2020 ◽  
pp. 107755872097258
Author(s):  
Deb Mitchell ◽  
Lisa O’Brien ◽  
Anne Bardoel ◽  
Terry Haines

This longitudinal qualitative study examines staff experience of disinvestment from a service they are accustomed to providing to their patients. It took place alongside a disinvestment trial that measured the impact of the removal of weekend allied health services from acute wards at two hospitals. Data were gathered from repeated interviews and focus groups with 450 health care staff. We developed a grounded theory, which explains changes in staff perceptions over time and the key modifying factors. Staff appeared to experience disinvestment as loss; a key difference to other operational changes. Early staff experiences of disinvestment were primarily negative, but evolved with time and change-management strategies such as the provision of data, clear and persistent communication approaches, and forums where the big picture context of the disinvestment was robustly discussed. These allowed the disinvestment trial to be successfully implemented at two health services, with high compliance with the research protocol.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret McAllister ◽  
Dianne Wynaden ◽  
Brenda Happell ◽  
Trudi Flynn ◽  
Victoria Walters ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 1302-1309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Wiklund ◽  
Ingegerd Fagerberg ◽  
Åke Örtqvist ◽  
Kristina Broliden ◽  
Ann Tammelin

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e048124
Author(s):  
Catherine M Montgomery ◽  
Sally Humphreys ◽  
Corrienne McCulloch ◽  
Annemarie B Docherty ◽  
Steve Sturdy ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo understand National Health Service (NHS) staff experiences of working in critical care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.DesignQualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews and rapid analysis, interpreted using Baehr’s sociological lens of ‘communities of fate’.ParticipantsForty NHS staff working in critical care, including 21 nurses, 10 doctors and advanced critical care practitioners, 4 allied health professionals, 3 operating department practitioners and 2 ward clerks. Participants were interviewed between August and October 2020; we purposefully sought the experiences of trained and experienced critical care staff and those who were redeployed.SettingFour hospitals in the UK.ResultsCOVID-19 presented staff with a situation of extreme stress, duress and social emergency, leading to a shared set of experiences which we have characterised as a community of fate. This involved not only fear and dread of working in critical care, but also a collective sense of duty and vocation. Caring for patients and families involved changes to usual ways of working, revolving around: reorganisation of space and personnel, personal protective equipment, lack of evidence for treating COVID-19, inability for families to be physically present, and the trauma of witnessing extreme patient acuity and death on a large scale. The stress and isolation of working in critical care during COVID-19 was mitigated by strong teamwork, camaraderie, pride and fulfilment.ConclusionCOVID-19 has changed working practices in critical care and profoundly affected staff physically, mentally and emotionally. Attention needs to be paid to the social and organisational conditions in which individuals work, addressing both practical resourcing and the interpersonal dynamics of critical care provision.


Trials ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Lawton ◽  
David White ◽  
David Rankin ◽  
Jackie Elliott ◽  
Carolin Taylor ◽  
...  

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Elizabeth Phelps ◽  
◽  
Elizabeth Tutton ◽  
Xavier Griffin ◽  
Janis Baird

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document