Feasibility of implementing a surgical patient safety checklist: prospective cross-sectional evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030 call for attention to patient and family involvement to reduce preventable patient harm. Existing evidence indicates that patients' involvement in their own safety has positive effects on reducing hospitalisation time and readmissions. One intervention reported in the literature is the use of checklists designed for patients' completion. Studies on such checklists are small scale, but they are linked to reduction in length of hospital stay and readmissions. We have previously developed and validated a two-part surgical patient safety checklist (PASC). This study aims to investigate the feasibility of the PASC usage and implementation prior to its use in a large-scale clinical trial. METHODS: This is a prospective cross-sectional feasibility study, set up as part of the design of a larger stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SW-CRCT). Descriptive statistics were used to investigate patient demographics, reasons for not completing the PASC and percentage of PASC item usage. Qualitative patient interviews were used to identify barriers and drivers for implementation. Interview was analysed through content analysis. RESULTS: Out of 428 recruited patients, 50.2% (215/428) used both parts of PASC. A total of 24.1% (103/428) of the patients did not use it at all due to surgical or COVID-19-related cancellations. A total of 19.9% (85/428) did not consent to participate, 5.1% (22/428) lost the checklist and 0.7% (3/428) of the patients died during the study. A total of 86.5% (186/215) patients used ≥ 80% of the checklist items. Barriers and drivers for PASC implementation were grouped into the following categories: Time frame for completing the checklist, patient safety checklist design, impetus to communicate with healthcare professionals and support throughout the surgical pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Elective surgical patients were willing and able to use PASC. The study further revealed a set of barriers and drivers to the implementation. A large-scale definitive clinical-implementation hybrid trial is being launched to ascertain the clinical effectiveness and scalability of PASC in improving surgical patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03105713. Registered 10.04.2017.

Online singing interventions for postnatal depression in times of social isolation: a feasibility study protocol for the SHAPER-PNDO single-arm trial.

BACKGROUND: Postnatal depression (PND) affects 13% of new mothers, with numbers rising during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this prevalence, many women have difficulty with or hesitancy towards accessing pharmacological and/or psychological interventions. Group-based mother-baby activities, however, have a good uptake, with singing improving maternal mental health and the mother-infant relationship. The recent lockdowns highlight the importance of adapting activities to an online platform that is wide-reaching and accessible. AIMS: The SHAPER-PNDO study will primarily analyse the feasibility of a 6-week online singing intervention, Melodies for Mums (M4M), for mothers with PND who are experiencing barriers to treatment. The secondary aim of the SHAPER-PNDO study will be to analyse the clinical efficacy of the 6-week M4M intervention for symptoms of postnatal depression. METHODS: A total of 120 mothers and their babies will be recruited for this single-arm study. All dyads will attend 6 weekly online singing sessions, facilitated by Breathe Arts Health Research. Assessments will be conducted on Zoom at baseline and week 6, with follow-ups at weeks 16 and 32, and will contain interviews for demographics, mental health, and social circumstances, and biological samples will be taken for stress markers. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken to understand the experiences of women attending the sessions and the facilitators delivering them. Finally, data will be collected on recruitment, study uptake and attendance of the programme, participant retention, and acceptability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: The SHAPER-PNDO study will focus on the feasibility, alongside the clinical efficacy, of an online delivery of M4M, available to all mothers with PND. We hope to provide a more accessible, effective treatment option for mothers with PND that can be available both during and outside of the pandemic for mothers who would otherwise struggle to attend in-person sessions, as well as to prepare for a subsequent hybrid RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04857593 . Registered retrospectively on 22 April 2021. The first participants were recruited on 27 January 2021, and the trial is ongoing.

Psychosocial factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the UK: a prospective cohort study (CoVAccS – wave 3)

Background We investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, future vaccination intentions, and changes in beliefs and attitudes over time. Methods Prospective cohort study. 1500 participants completed an online survey in January 2021 (T1, start of vaccine rollout in the UK), of whom 1148 (response rate 76.5%) completed another survey in October 2021 (T2, all UK adults offered two vaccine doses). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with subsequent vaccine uptake. Content analysis was used to investigate the main reasons behind future vaccine intentions (T2). Changes in beliefs and attitudes were investigated using analysis of variance. Findings: At T2, 90.0% (95% CI 88.2%-91.7%) of participants had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 2.2% (95% CI 1.3%-3.0%) had received one dose, and 7.4% (95% CI 5.9%-8.9%) had not been vaccinated. Uptake was associated with higher intention to be vaccinated at T1, greater perceived vaccination social norms, necessity of vaccination, and perceived safety of the vaccine. People who had initiated vaccination reported being likely to complete it, while those who had not yet received a vaccine reported being unlikely to be vaccinated in the future. At T2, participants perceived greater susceptibility to, but lower severity of, COVID-19 (p<0.001), than T1. Perceived safety and adequacy of vaccine information were higher (p<0.001). Interpretation: Targeting modifiable beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination may increase uptake.

Psychosocial factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the UK: A prospective cohort study (CoVAccS - Wave 3).

Background: We investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake, future vaccination intentions, and changes in beliefs and attitudes over time. Methods: Prospective cohort study. 1500 participants completed an online survey in January 2021 (T1, start of vaccine rollout in the UK), of whom 1148 (response rate 76.5 %) completed another survey in October 2021 (T2, all UK adults offered two vaccine doses). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate factors associated with subsequent vaccine uptake. Content analysis was used to investigate the main reasons behind future vaccine intentions (T2). Changes in beliefs and attitudes were investigated using analysis of variance. Findings: At T2, 90.0 % (95 % CI 88.2-91.7 %) of participants had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, 2.2 % (95 % CI 1.3-3.0 %) had received one dose, and 7.4 % (95 % CI 5.9-8.9 %) had not been vaccinated. Uptake was associated with higher intention to be vaccinated at T1, greater perceived vaccination social norms, necessity of vaccination, and perceived safety of the vaccine. People who had initiated vaccination reported being likely to complete it, while those who had not yet received a vaccine reported being unlikely to be vaccinated in the future. At T2, participants perceived greater susceptibility to, but lower severity of, COVID-19 (p < 0.001) than at T1. Perceived safety and adequacy of vaccine information were higher (p < 0.001). Interpretation: Targeting modifiable beliefs about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination may increase uptake.

Implementation strategies for telemental health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift from traditional face-to-face care provision towards delivering mental health care remotely through telecommunications, often referred to as telemental health care. However, the manner and extent of telemental health implementation have varied considerably across settings and areas, and substantial barriers are encountered. There is, therefore, a need to identify what works best for service users and staff and establish the key mechanisms for efficient integration into routine care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify investigations of pre-planned strategies reported in the literature intended to achieve or improve effective and sustained implementation of telemental health approaches (including video calls, telephone calls, text messaging platforms or a combination of any of these approaches with face-to-face care), and to evaluate how different strategies influence implementation outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with five databases searched for any relevant literature published between January 2010 and July 2021. Studies were eligible if they took place in specialist mental health services and focused on pre-planned strategies to achieve or improve the delivery of mental health care through remote communication between mental health professionals or between mental health professionals and service users, family members, unpaid carers, or peer supporters. All included studies were quality-assessed. Data were synthesised using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation of implementation strategies and the taxonomy of implementation outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria from a total of 14,294 records of which 338 were assessed at full text. All ERIC implementation strategies were used by at least one study, the most commonly reported being 'Train and educate stakeholders'. All studies reported using a combination of several implementation strategies, with the mean number of strategies used per study of 3.5 (range 2-6), many of which were reported to result in an improvement in implementation over time. Few studies specifically investigated a single implementation strategy and its associated outcomes, making conclusions regarding the most beneficial strategy difficult to draw. CONCLUSIONS: Using a combination of implementation strategies appears to be a helpful method of supporting the implementation of telemental health. Further research is needed to test the impact of specific implementation strategies on implementation outcomes.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised self-management intervention for living with long COVID: protocol for the LISTEN randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with long COVID experience multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which can have a dramatic impact on daily living. The aim of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support EvaluatioN (LISTEN) trial is to evaluate effects of the LISTEN co-designed self-management support intervention for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID on participation in routine activities, social participation, emotional well-being, quality of life, fatigue, and self-efficacy. Cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated, and a detailed process evaluation carried out to understand how LISTEN is implemented. METHODS: The study is a pragmatic randomised effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial in which a total of 558 non-hospitalised people with long COVID will be randomised to either the LISTEN intervention or usual care. Recruitment strategies have been developed with input from the LISTEN Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) advisory group and a social enterprise, Diversity and Ability, to ensure inclusivity. Eligible participants can self-refer into the trial via a website or be referred by long COVID services. All participants complete a range of self-reported outcome measures, online, at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post randomisation (the trial primary end point). Those randomised to the LISTEN intervention are offered up to six one-to-one sessions with LISTEN-trained intervention practitioners and given a co-designed digital resource and paper-based book. A detailed process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform implementation approaches should the LISTEN intervention be found effective and cost-effective. DISCUSSION: The LISTEN trial is evaluating a co-designed, personalised self-management support intervention (the LISTEN intervention) for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID. The design has incorporated extensive strategies to minimise participant burden and maximise access. Whilst the duration of follow-up is limited, all participants are approached to consent for long-term follow-up (subject to additional funding being secured). TRIAL REGISTRATION: LISTEN ISRCTN36407216. Registered on 27/01/2022.

Evaluation of changes to work patterns in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A national mixed-method survey study.

BACKGROUND: It is not well understood the overall changes that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have had to make in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor the impact that such changes, in addition to the other challenges faced by MDTs, have had on decision-making, communication, or participation in the context of MDT meetings specifically. METHODS: This was a mixed method, prospective cross-sectional survey study taking place in the United Kingdom between September 2020 and August 2021. RESULTS: The participants were 423 MDT members. Qualitative findings revealed hybrid working and possibility of virtual attendance as the change introduced because of COVID-19 that MDTs would like to maintain. However, IT-related issues, slower meetings, longer lists and delays were identified as common with improving of the IT infrastructure necessary going forward. In contrast, virtual meetings and increased attendance/availability of clinicians were highlighted as the positive outcomes resulting from the change. Quantitative findings showed significant improvement from before COVID-19 for MDT meeting organisation and logistics (M = 45, SD = 20) compared to the access (M = 50, SD = 12, t(390) = 5.028, p = 0.001), case discussions (M = 50, SD = 14, t(373) = -5.104, p = 0.001), and patient representation (M = 50, SD = 12, t(382) = -4.537, p = 0.001) at MDT meetings. DISCUSSION: Our study explored the perception of change since COVID-19 among cancer MDTs using mixed methods. While hybrid working was preferred, challenges exist. Significant improvements in the meeting organisation and logistics were reported. Although we found no significant perceived worsening across the four domains investigated, there was an indication in this direction for the case discussions warranting further 'live' assessments of MDT meetings.

Parents' intention to vaccinate their child for COVID-19: A mixed-methods study (CoVAccS-wave 3).

AIM: To investigate UK parents' vaccination intention at a time when COVID-19 vaccination was available to some children. METHODS: Data reported are from the second wave of a prospective cohort study. We conducted a mixed-methods study using an online survey of 270 UK parents (conducted 4-15 October 2021). At this time, vaccination was available to 16- and 17-year-olds and had become available to 12- to 15-year-olds two weeks prior. We asked participants whose child had not yet been vaccinated how likely they were to vaccinate their child for COVID-19. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate factors associated with intention (quantitative component). Parents were also asked for their main reasons behind vaccination intention. Open-ended responses were analysed using content analysis (qualitative component). RESULTS: Parental vaccination intention was mixed (likely: 39.3%, 95% CI 32.8%, 45.7%; uncertain: 33.9%, 95% CI 27.7%, 40.2%; unlikely: 26.8%, 95% CI 20.9%, 32.6%). Intention was associated with: parental COVID-19 vaccination status; greater perceived necessity and social norms regarding COVID-19 vaccination; greater COVID-19 threat appraisal; and lower vaccine safety and novelty concerns. In those who intended to vaccinate their child, the main reasons for doing so were to protect the child and others. In those who did not intend to vaccinate their child, the main reason was safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Parent COVID-19 vaccination status and psychological factors explained a large percentage of the variance in vaccination intention for one's child. Further study is needed to see whether parents' intention to vaccinate their child is affected by fluctuating infection rates, more children being vaccinated, and the UK's reliance on vaccination as a strategy to live with COVID-19.

Psychological factors associated with reporting side effects following COVID-19 vaccination: A prospective cohort study (CoVAccS - Wave 3).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate symptom reporting following the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses, attribution of symptoms to the vaccine, and factors associated with symptom reporting. METHODS: Prospective cohort study (T1: 13-15 January 2021, T2: 4-15 October 2021). Participants were aged 18 years or older, living in the UK. Personal, clinical, and psychological factors were investigated at T1. Symptoms were reported at T2. We used logistic regression analyses to investigate associations. RESULTS: After the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, 74.1% (95% CI 71.4% to 76.7%, n = 762/1028) of participants reported at least one injection-site symptom, while 65.0% (95% CI 62.0% to 67.9%, n = 669/1029) reported at least one other (non-injection-site) symptom. Symptom reporting was associated with being a woman and younger. After the second dose, 52.9% (95% CI 49.8% to 56.0%, n = 532/1005) of participants reported at least one injection-site symptom and 43.7% (95% CI 40.7% to 46.8%, n = 440/1006) reported at least one other (non-injection-site) symptom. Symptom reporting was associated with having reported symptoms after the first dose, having an illness that put one at higher risk of COVID-19 (non-injection-site symptoms only), and not believing that one had enough information about COVID-19 to make an informed decision about vaccination (injection-site symptoms only). CONCLUSIONS: Women and younger people were more likely to report symptoms from vaccination. People who had reported symptoms from previous doses were also more likely to report symptoms subsequently, although symptom reporting following the second vaccine was lower than following the first vaccine. Few psychological factors were associated with symptom reporting.

Mixed-methods implementation study of a virtual culturally tailored diabetes self-management programme for African and Caribbean communities (HEAL-D) in south London and its scaling up across NHS regions in England: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The National Health Service Insight Prioritisation Programme was established to accelerate the implementation and evaluation of innovation that supports post-pandemic working. Supporting this, the Academic Health Science Network and National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration in South London are testing and evaluating the implementation and scale-up of a type 2 diabetes (T2D) intervention.T2D is estimated to be three times more prevalent in UK African and Caribbean communities than in white Europeans. To tackle ethnic inequities in T2D healthcare access, an evidence-based, culturally tailored self-management and education programme for African and Caribbean adults (Healthy Eating & Active Lifestyles for Diabetes, HEAL-D) has been codeveloped with people with lived experience. Initially a face-to-face programme, HEAL-D pivoted to virtual delivery in response to COVID-19.The purpose of this study is to explore the (1) feasibility and acceptability of a virtual delivery model for HEAL-D in south London and (2) factors affecting its scale-up across other areas in England. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will have two strands: (1) mixed-methods prospective evaluation of HEAL-D virtual delivery in south London using routinely collected service-level data, service delivery staff and service user interviews and observations; and (2) prospective qualitative study of the scale-up of this virtual delivery comprising interviews and focus groups with members of the public, and diabetes services commissioners and providers across England. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative analysis will use descriptive statistics and reporting summary tables and figures. The study will be grounded in well-established implementation frameworks and service user involvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: 'Minimal Risk Registration' ethical clearance was granted by King's College London's Research Ethics Office (ref: MRA-21/22-28498). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and summaries provided to the study funders and participants.

Intention to have the seasonal influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic among eligible adults in the UK: a cross-sectional survey

ObjectiveTo investigate the likelihood of having the seasonal influenza vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals who were eligible to receive it.DesignWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey in July 2020. We included predictors informed by previous research, in the following categories: sociodemographic variables;uptake of influenza vaccine last winter and beliefs about vaccination.Participants570 participants (mean age: 53.07;56.3% female, 87.0% white) who were eligible for the free seasonal influenza vaccination in the UK.Results59.7% of our sample indicated they were likely to have the seasonal influenza vaccination, 22.1% reported being unlikely to have the vaccination and 18.2% were unsure. We used logistic regression to investigate variables associated with intention to receive a seasonal influenza vaccine in the 2020–2021 season. A positive attitude to vaccination in general predicted intention to have the influenza vaccine in 2020–2021 (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.77, p<0.001) but the strongest predictor of intention was previous influenza vaccination behaviour (OR 278.58, 95% CI 78.04 to 994.46, p<0.001).ConclusionsPrevious research suggests that increasing uptake of the influenza vaccination may help contain a COVID-19 outbreak, so steps need to be taken to convert intention into behaviour and to reach those individuals who reported being unlikely or unsure about having the vaccine.

Evaluation of a community-based performance arts programme for people who have experienced stroke in the UK: protocol for the SHAPER-Stroke Odysseys study.

INTRODUCTION: Stroke survivors, once in the community, face challenges with their long-term rehabilitation care and present higher levels of loneliness, depression and anxiety than the rest of the population. A community-based performance arts programme, Stroke Odysseys (SO), has been devised to tackle the challenges of living with stroke in the UK. In this study, we aim to evaluate the implementation, impact and experiences of SO for stroke survivors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Scaling-up Health Arts Programmes: Implementation and Effectiveness Research (SHAPER)-SO aims to scale-up SO to 75 participants and 47 stakeholders, while simultaneously evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of the programme. The main research aim is to evaluate the implementation, effectiveness, impact and experiences of a community-based performance arts programme (SO for stroke survivors). This mixed-methods study will evaluate the experience and impact of SO on those participating using mixed methods (interviews, observations and surveys) before and after each stage and carry out non-participant observations during a percentage of the workshops, training and tour. Data will be analysed using quantitative and qualitative approaches. This is a study within the SHAPER programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the King's College London PNM Research Ethics Panel, REC reference: LRS/DP-20/21-21549. Written informed consent will be sought for participants and stakeholders. The results of the study will be reported and disseminated at international conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04864470.

Side-effect expectations from COVID-19 vaccination: Findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS - wave 2).

OBJECTIVES: Concern about side effects is one of the most common reasons for refusing vaccination. Side-effect expectations are known to predict perception of side effects. We aimed to investigate the percentage of people who thought side effects from COVID-19 vaccination were likely and investigate factors associated with side-effect expectation. METHODS: Online cross-sectional survey of 1470 UK adults who had not been vaccinated for COVID-19 (conducted 13 to 15 January 2021). We asked participants how likely they thought side effects from COVID-19 vaccination were. Linear regression analyses were used to investigate associations with side-effect expectations. RESULTS: Most participants were uncertain whether they would experience side effects from a COVID-19 vaccine; only a minority reported that side effects were very likely (9.4%, 95% CI 7.9% to 10.9%, n = 138/1470). Personal and clinical characteristics, general, and COVID-19 vaccination beliefs and attitudes explained 29.7% of the variance in side-effect expectation, with COVID-19 vaccination beliefs alone accounting for 17.2%. Side-effect expectations were associated with: older age, being clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, being afraid of needles, lower perceived social norms for COVID-19 vaccination, lower perceived necessity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination, and perceived lack of information about COVID-19 and vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Side-effect expectation was associated with believing that COVID-19 vaccination was unsafe, ineffective and that others would be less likely to approve of you having a COVID-19 vaccination. Communications should emphasise the safety, effectiveness, and widespread uptake of vaccination, while promoting accurate perceptions of the incidence of vaccination side effects.

Implementation, Adoption, and Perceptions of Telemental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Early in 2020, mental health services had to rapidly shift from face-to-face models of care to delivering the majority of treatments remotely (by video or phone call or occasionally messaging) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in several challenges for staff and patients, but also in benefits such as convenience or increased access for people with impaired mobility or in rural areas. There is a need to understand the extent and impacts of telemental health implementation, and barriers and facilitators to its effective and acceptable use. This is relevant both to future emergency adoption of telemental health and to debates on its future use in routine mental health care. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the adoption and impacts of telemental health approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic, and facilitators and barriers to optimal implementation. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for primary research relating to remote working, mental health care, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint servers were also searched. Results of studies were synthesized using framework synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 77 papers met our inclusion criteria. In most studies, the majority of contacts could be transferred to a remote form during the pandemic, and good acceptability to service users and clinicians tended to be reported, at least where the alternative to remote contacts was interrupting care. However, a range of impediments to dealing optimal care by this means were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of telemental health allowed some continuing support to the majority of service users during the COVID-19 pandemic and has value in an emergency situation. However, not all service users can be reached by this means, and better evidence is now needed on long-term impacts on therapeutic relationships and quality of care, and on impacts on groups at risk of digital exclusion and how to mitigate these. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42021211025; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021211025.

A feasibility hybrid II randomised controlled trial of volunteer 'Health Champions' supporting people with serious mental illness manage their physical health: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illnesses (SMI) such as schizophrenia often also have physical health illnesses and interventions are needed to address the resultant multimorbidity and reduced life expectancy. Research has shown that volunteers can support people with SMI. This protocol describes a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a novel intervention involving volunteer 'Health Champions' supporting people with SMI to manage and improve their physical health. METHODS: This is a feasibility hybrid II randomised effectiveness-implementation controlled trial. The intervention involves training volunteers to be 'Health Champions' to support individual people with SMI using mental health services. This face-to-face or remote support will take place weekly and last for up to 9 months following initial introduction. This study will recruit 120 participants to compare Health Champions to treatment as usual for people with SMI using secondary community mental health services in South London, UK. We will measure the clinical and cost effectiveness including quality of life. We will measure the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, fidelity, barriers and enablers, unintended consequences, adoption and sustainability. DISCUSSION: There is a need for interventions to support people with SMI with their physical health. If this feasibility trial is successful, a definitive trial will follow to fully evaluate the clinical, cost and implementation effectiveness of Health Champions supporting people with SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration no: NCT04124744 .

A Smartphone App Designed to Empower Patients to Contribute Toward Safer Surgical Care: Qualitative Evaluation of Diverse Public and Patient Perceptions Using Focus Groups

Background: MySurgery is a smartphone app designed to empower patients and their caregivers to contribute toward safer surgical care by following practical advice to help reduce susceptibility to errors and complications. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate service users’ perceptions of MySurgery, including its perceived acceptability, the potential barriers and facilitators to accessing and using its content, and ideas about how to facilitate its effective implementation. The secondary aim is to analyze how the intended use of the app might differ for diverse patients, including seldom-heard groups. Methods: We implemented a diversity approach to recruit participants from a range of backgrounds with previous experience of surgery. We aimed to achieve representation from seldom-heard groups, including those from a Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) background;those with a disability;and those from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBT+) community. A total of 3 focus groups were conducted across a 2-month period, during which a semistructured protocol was followed to elicit a rich discussion around the app. The focus groups were audio recorded, and thematic analysis was carried out. Results: In total, 22 individuals participated in the focus groups. A total of 50% (n=11) of the participants were from a BAME background, 59% (n=13) had a disability, and 36% (n=8) were from the LGBT+ community. There was a strong degree of support for the MySurgery app. The majority of participants agreed that it was acceptable and appropriate in terms of content and usability, and that it would help to educate patients about how to become involved in improving safety. The checklist-like format was popular. There was rich discussion around the accessibility and inclusivity of MySurgery. Specific user groups were identified who might face barriers in accessing the app or acting on its advice, such as those with visual impairments or learning difficulties and those who preferred to take a more passive role (eg, some individuals because of their cultural background or personality type). The app could be improved by signposting further specialty-specific information and incorporating a calendar and notes section. With regard to implementation, it was agreed that use of the app should be signposted before the preoperative appointment and that training and education should be provided for clinicians to increase awareness and buy-in. Communication about the app should clarify its scientific basis in plain English and should stress that its use is optional. Conclusions: MySurgery was endorsed as a powerful tool for enhancing patient empowerment and facilitating the direct involvement of patients and their caregivers in maintaining patient safety. The diversity approach allowed for a better understanding of the needs of different population groups and highlighted opportunities for increasing accessibility and involvement in the app.

Implementation evaluation of staff support and wellbeing programmes at an academic health science centre during COVID-19: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from previous pandemics as well as early evidence from COVID-19 suggests risk of adverse mental health and wellbeing outcomes for healthcare workers. In response to these concerns, healthcare systems and organisations rapidly established staff support and wellbeing programmes. While there is emerging literature related to the effectiveness of such interventions, what is less well understood and evaluated is the evidence base regarding how such programmes are implemented; what supports and hinders their implementation; and how or if they are maintained following the initial acute phase of the pandemic. This study addresses this gap by studying the implementation process of COVID-19-related staff wellbeing programmes in the three UK NHS Trusts that make up one of Europe's largest academic health sciences centres, King's Health Partners. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective, cross-sectional descriptive study using qualitative research methods and non-probability purposive sampling to identify a study participant group representative of the population and implementation activity of interest. We will conduct semi-structured interviews of between 30 min and 1 h. We will identify theory-driven elements in the dataset using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (barriers and drivers), Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment Framework (timeline/chronology/evolution of the implementation and different issues at different times) and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (implementation strategies). We will then identify indicators of these constructs within the dataset and report them, as well as their inter-relationships. DISCUSSION: Through this study, we hope to better understand what factors hindered and enabled the implementation of three inter-linked staff support and wellbeing programmes and how/to what extent have these programmes been sustained. We will also explore whether implementation science frameworks are applicable and beneficial in conceptualising and understanding crisis driven and rapidly implemented interventions and in what ways, if any, they need to be adjusted when used in unprecedented circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.