scholarly journals Engagement with and delivery of the ‘parkrun practice initiative’ in general practice: a mixed methods study

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (697) ◽  
pp. e573-e580
Author(s):  
Joanna Fleming ◽  
Carol Bryce ◽  
Joanne Parsons ◽  
Chrissie Wellington ◽  
Jeremy Dale
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Improve Patient

BackgroundThe parkrun practice initiative, a joint collaboration between parkrun and the Royal College of General Practitioners, was launched to encourage general practices to improve the health and wellbeing of patients and staff through participating in local 5 km parkrun events. Why and how practices engage with the initiative is unknown.AimTo investigate engagement with and delivery of the parkrun practice initiative in general practice.Design and settingMixed methods study conducted from April–July 2019 comprising an online survey of all registered parkrun practices, and interviews and a focus group with practice staff in the West Midlands.MethodThe designated contacts at 780 registered parkrun practices were invited to complete an online survey. A purposive sample of parkrun practice staff and non-registered practice staff took part either in semi-structured interviews or a focus group, with transcripts analysed thematically.ResultsOf the total number of parkrun practices, 306 (39.2%) completed the survey. Sixteen practice staff (from nine parkrun practices and four non-registered practices) took part in either semi-structured interviews (n = 12) or a focus group (n = 4). Key motivators for becoming a parkrun practice were: to improve patient and staff health and wellbeing, and to become more engaged with the community and enhance practice image. Practices most commonly encouraged patients, carers, and staff to take part in parkrun and displayed parkrun flyers and posters. Challenges in implementing activities included lack of time (both personal and during consultations) and getting staff involved. Where staff did engage there were positive effects on morale and participation. Non-registered practices were receptive to the initiative, but had apprehensions about the commitment involved.ConclusionPractices were keen to improve patient and staff health. Addressing time constraints and staff support needs to be considered when implementing the initiative.

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽  
Petra. J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative . A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritized determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this ways it helps to bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Exploration of sedentary behaviour among general practitioners: protocol for a mixed methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Richard S. Mayne ◽  
Nigel D. Hart ◽  
Neil Heron
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
New Ways Of Working ◽  
Adverse Health Outcomes ◽  
Sequential Mixed Methods ◽  
Working Day

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Many general practitioners (GPs) are sedentary for most of their working day. Levels of sedentary behaviour may have been exacerbated by increased use of telemedicine in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, as this is traditionally performed while sitting down. Excessive sedentary behaviour is associated with many adverse health outcomes and increased all-cause mortality. This study will gain quantitative data on levels of sedentary behaviour among GPs and general practice specialty trainees (GPSTs), to identify to what extent general practice is a sedentary occupation, as well as qualitative data regarding the barriers and facilitators to reducing sedentary behaviour in the general practice setting.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> The study follows a sequential, mixed-methods model. The first stage will involve the dissemination of a questionnaire survey, where participants self-estimate their sedentary behaviour on a working day and on a non-working day. The second stage will use thigh-worn accelerometers and a sleep/work log to obtain objective data regarding sedentary behaviour among a purposive subset of participants who responded to the questionnaire. The third stage will involve semi-structured interviews with a purposive subset of accelerometer study participants, analysed with the application of a theoretical framework regarding the acceptability of healthcare interventions.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This paper outlines a protocol for a sequential, mixed-methods study exploring sedentary behaviour among GPs and GPSTs. Findings of this study will shed light on the new ways of working as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which will be relevant to clinicians working in similar primary care settings throughout the world.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Trial Registration:</strong> ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04556695. Date of registration: 21<sup>st</sup> September 2020.</p><p class="abstract"> </p>

Stakeholder perspectives about general practice pharmacists in the Australian Capital Territory: a qualitative pilot study

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise S. Deeks ◽  
Sam Kosari ◽  
Mark Naunton ◽  
Gabrielle Cooper ◽  
Julie Porritt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Improve Patient Safety ◽  
Community Pharmacists ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Australian Capital Territory ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Australian Capital ◽  
Stakeholder Perspectives ◽  
Improve Patient

Previous studies have found that integrating non-dispensing pharmacists in general practice may improve patient safety, improve patient outcomes, deliver health system efficiencies and generate savings. However, the employment of pharmacists in general practice is not common in Australia. A naturalistic study was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory with three general practices, each employing a part-time pharmacist for 12 months. This study reports on stakeholder perspectives of the benefits, barriers and enablers for integrating pharmacists into general practice. Patients, practice staff and community pharmacists that had interacted with a practice pharmacist were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Patient questionnaire respondents (n=44) reported that a practice pharmacist was beneficial and wanted to see this continue. Practice pharmacists were also perceived beneficial by primary healthcare employees surveyed (n=42). Opinions were further explored by individual semi-structured interviews (n=20). The qualitative data explored five themes: perception of the practice pharmacist, collaboration with doctors, pharmacist roles, sustainability and community pharmacy aspects. Patients welcomed improved understanding about their medication, whereas general practice staff appreciated pharmaceutical advice about patients with chronic conditions. Participants discussed options to fund practice pharmacists longer term, which was identified as the main barrier to widespread roll out.

scholarly journals Midwives’ experiences of caring for women with antenatal anxiety and depression: A qualitative study with midwifery acupuncturists

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee-Ana Lowe ◽  
Debra Betts
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Maternal Mental Health ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Antenatal Anxiety

Background: Pregnant women seek help for a range of physical and emotional pregnancy symptoms from traditional acupuncturists. Whether midwifery acupuncturists in Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa NZ) provide acupuncture for antenatal anxiety and depression (AAD) in practice is currently unknown. Aim: This qualitative arm of a mixed-methods study aimed to explore midwifery acupuncturist experiences of caring for pregnant women with AAD in Aotearoa NZ. The aim of the research was to examine the factors that influence midwifery acupuncturists' perceptions of acupuncture use for AAD. Method: This was a mixed-methods study involving an online survey and in-depth interviews from a convenience sample of Aotearoa NZ midwifery acupuncturists who had completed a Certificate of Midwifery Acupuncture. This paper describes the thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews. Findings: The eight interviewees were mostly NZ European (n=6) and Lead Maternity Carers (LMCs; n=6) caring for pregnant women in rural and urban locations throughout Aotearoa NZ. The interviews revealed an overarching theme, “helping midwives to navigate the ocean of AAD”, which identified the lack of support participants experienced from current maternity health services for AAD in Aotearoa NZ. Subthemes “Missing the boat during pregnancy” expressed how participants felt no options were available for AAD prevention, while “keeping women afloat with no ship in sight” represented how interviewees tried to keep women in their care stable even though access to maternal mental health services was difficult. Participants felt acupuncture was a useful non-pharmaceutical tool that works; however, they had reservations about “adding acupuncture to the midwifery toolbox”. Conclusion: Aotearoa NZ midwifery acupuncturists were concerned about AAD and the limited conventional options available for women in their care. Acupuncture was viewed as a promising adjunct to usual treatment for AAD. Reservations included adding acupuncture to an already heavy midwifery workload, the cost of acupuncture, and the appropriateness of the treatment.

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement initiatives led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne A. C. van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R. M. G. Fluit ◽  
Petra J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritised determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this way it helps in bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Development of a tool for identifying and addressing prioritised determinants of quality improvement projects led by healthcare professionals: a mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Tuijl ◽  
Hub C. Wollersheim ◽  
Cornelia R.M.G. Fluit ◽  
Petra. J. van Gurp ◽  
Hiske Calsbeek
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Priority Score ◽  
A Priority

Abstract Background: Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ≥ 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results: The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions: This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritized determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this ways it helps to bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

scholarly journals Assessing the Potential for Integrating Routine Data Collection on Complementary Feeding to Child Health Visits: A Mixed-Methods Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Tully ◽  
Charlotte M. Wright ◽  
Deirdre McCormick ◽  
Ada L. Garcia
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Child Health ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Dietary Diversity ◽  
Family Health ◽  
Routine Data ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Routine Data Collection

There is no routine data collection in the UK on infant dietary diversity during the transition to solid foods, and health visitors (HVs) (nurses or midwives with specialist training in children and family health) have the potential to play a key role in nutrition surveillance. We aimed to assess items for inclusion in routine data collection, their suitability for collecting informative data, and acceptability among HVs. A mixed-methods study was undertaken using: (i) an online survey testing potential questionnaire items among parents/caregivers, (ii) questionnaire redevelopment in collaboration with community staff, and (iii) a survey pilot by HVs followed by qualitative data collection. Preliminary online questionnaires (n = 122) were collected to identify useful items on dietary diversity. Items on repeated exposure to foods, aversive feeding behaviors, flavor categories, and sugar intake were selected to correspond to nutrition recommendations, and be compatible with electronic records via tablet. HVs surveyed 187 parents of infants aged 12 months. Semi-structured interviews indicated that HVs found the questionnaire comparable with standard nutrition conversations, which prompted helpful discussions, but questions on eating behavior did not prompt such useful discussions and, in some cases, caused confusion about what was ‘normal.’ Lack of time among HVs, internet connectivity issues, and fear of losing rapport with parents were barriers to completing electronic questionnaires, with 91% submitted by paper. Routine nutrition data collection via child health records seems feasible and could inform quality improvement projects.

scholarly journals Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryke Wilkinson ◽  
Karen J. Hofman ◽  
Taryn Young ◽  
Bey-Marrié Schmidt ◽  
Tamara Kredo
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Group Discussion ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Economic Evidence ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Mean Values

Abstract Background Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa. Methods This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified. Results The survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was ‘making more efficient use of limited financial resources’. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement. Conclusions HEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.

Risk perception on the labour ward: A mixed methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-63
Author(s):  
Claire McCarthy ◽  
Sarah Meaney ◽  
Marie Rochford ◽  
Keelin O’Donoghue
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Emergency Obstetric Care ◽  
Obstetric Care ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Staff Support ◽  
Staff Wellbeing

Healthcare providers commonly experience risky situations in the provision of maternity care, and there has been increased focus on the lived experience in recent years. We aimed to assess opinions on, understanding of and behaviours of risk on the LW by conducting a mixed methods study. Staff working in a LW setting completed a descriptive questionnaire-based study, followed by qualitative structured interviews. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS on quantitative data and thematic analysis performed on qualitative data. Nearly two thirds of staff (64%; 73/114) completed the questionnaire, with 56.2% (n = 47) experiencing risk on a daily basis. Experiencing risk evoked feelings of apprehension (68.4%; n = 50) and worry (60.2%; n = 44) which was echoed in the qualitative work. Structured clinical assessment was utilised in risky situations, and staff described “ going on autopilot” to manage these situations. A large number of respondents reflected on their provision of care following an adverse event (87.7%; n = 64). Debriefing was mentioned as an important practice following such events by all respondents. This study describes the negative terminology prevailing in emergency obstetric care. These experiences can have a profound impact on staff. Risk reduction strategies and the provision of increased staff support and training are crucial to improve staff wellbeing in stressful scenarios.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document