Health visiting in the UK in light of the COVID-19 pandemic experience (RReHOPE): a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health visiting services, providing support to under 5s and their families, are organised and delivered in very different ways in different parts of the UK. While there has been attention to the key components of health visiting practice and what works well and how, there is little research on how health visiting services are organised and delivered and how that affects their ability to meet their objectives. The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly disrupted service delivery from March 2020. This realist review aims to synthesise the evidence on changes during the pandemic to identify the potential for improving health visiting services and their delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) quality standards and Pawson's five iterative stages to locate existing theories, search for evidence, select literature, extract data, synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. It will be guided by stakeholder engagement with practitioners, commissioners, policymakers, policy advocates and people with lived experience. This approach will consider the emerging strategies and evolving contexts in which the services are delivered, and the varied outcomes for different groups. A realist logic of analysis will be used to make sense of what was happening to health visiting services during and following the pandemic response through the identification and testing of programme theories. Our refined programme theory will then be used to develop recommendations for improving the organisation, delivery and ongoing postpandemic recovery of health visiting services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: General University Ethics Panel approval has been obtained from University of Stirling (reference 7662). Dissemination will build on links to policymakers, commissioners, providers, policy advocates and the public. A range of audiences will be targeted using outputs tailored to each. A final stakeholder event focused on knowledge mobilisation will aid development of recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022343117.

Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review.

OBJECTIVES: The NHS Health Check offers adults aged 40-74 an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Attendees should be offered appropriate clinical or behavioural interventions to help them to manage or reduce these risks. This project focused on understanding variation in the advice and support offered to Health Check attendees. DESIGN: We conducted a realist review, assembling a diverse body of literature via database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HMIC, Web of Science) and other search methods, and synthesised data extracted from documents using a realist logic of analysis. Our aim was to develop an understanding of contexts affecting delivery of the NHS Health Check and the underlying mechanisms producing outcomes related to the offer for attendees post-Check. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate differences in how NHS Health Check commissioners, providers and attendees understand the primary purpose of the programme. A focus on screening for disease can produce an emphasis on high-volume delivery in primary care. When delivery models are organised around behavioural approaches to risk reduction, more emphasis is placed on advice, and referrals to 'lifestyle services'. However, constrained funding and competing priorities for providers limit what can be delivered within the programme's remit. Attendees' experiences and responses to the programme are affected by how the programme is delivered, and by the difficulty of incorporating its outputs into their lives. CONCLUSIONS: The remit of the NHS Health Check should be reviewed with consideration of what can be effectively delivered within existing resources. Variation in delivery may be appropriate to meet local needs, but differences in how the programme's primary purpose is understood contribute to a 'postcode lottery' in post-Check advice and support. Our findings underline existing concerns that the programme may generate inequitable outcomes and raise questions about whether it can deliver positive outcomes for the majority of attendees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020163822.

Rapid changes to paediatric services in the pandemic early days – what went well? What can we learn? A qualitative study with paediatricians and other child health professionals conducted in mid-2020

517 Table 1Perceived positive and negative impacts of early Covid-19 response on Paediatric services in North of Scotland and North of EnglandConclusionDespite serious challenges experienced by staff during the first wave of the pandemic, there was also opportunity for positive change. As services ‘build back’, in the context of the NHS long-term plan, our findings suggest opportunities for change for the benefit for children and young people.

Qualitative analysis of the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response on paediatric health services in North of Scotland and North of England.

OBJECTIVE: To capture the extent and impact of changes in the delivery of child health services in the UK, resulting from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response, from the perspectives of a range of child healthcare providers. SETTING: National Health Service commissioned/delivered healthcare services in two regional settings in the UK: North of Scotland (NOS) and North East and North Cumbria (NENC) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 39 child healthcare professionals including paediatricians, community/specialist nurses, allied health professionals and mental health professionals, from across the two regions (22 in NOS, 17 in NENC). METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews conducted via telephone between June and October 2020, fully transcribed and analysed in NVivo V.11 using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Extensive changes across a range of paediatric services were rapidly implemented to support the pandemic response and ongoing healthcare delivery. New ways of working emerged, principally to control the spread of the virus. Keeping users and their families out of hospital was an urgent driver for change. The changes had considerable impact on the health and well-being of staff with many experiencing radical changes to their working conditions and roles. However, there were some positive changes noted: some practitioners felt empowered and listened to by decision makers; some of the usual bureaucratic barriers to change were lifted; staff saw improved collaboration and joint working across the system; and some new ways of working were seen to be more efficient. Interviewees perceived the implications for children and their families to be profound, particularly with regard to self-care, relationships with practitioners and timely access to services. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges experienced by staff, the pandemic provided an opportunity for positive, lasting change. It is vital to capitalise on this opportunity to benefit patient outcomes and to 'build back' services in a more sustainable way.