A qualitative study of the dynamics of access to remote antenatal care through the lens of candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of pregnant women, antenatal healthcare professionals, and system leaders to understand the impact of the implementation of remote provision of antenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 93 participants, including 45 individuals who had been pregnant during the study period, 34 health care professionals, and 14 managers and system-level stakeholders. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method and used the theoretical framework of candidacy. RESULTS: We found that remote antenatal care had far-reaching effects on access when understood through the lens of candidacy. It altered women's own identification of themselves and their babies as eligible for antenatal care. Navigating services became more challenging, often requiring considerable digital literacy and sociocultural capital. Services became less permeable, meaning that they were more difficult to use and demanding of the personal and social resources of users. Remote consultations were seen as more transactional in character and were limited by lack of face-to-face contact and safe spaces, making it more difficult for women to make their needs - both clinical and social - known, and for professionals to assess them. Operational and institutional challenges, including problems in sharing of antenatal records, were consequential. There were suggestions that a shift to remote provision of antenatal care might increase risks of inequities in access to care in relation to every feature of candidacy we characterised. CONCLUSION: It is important to recognise the implications for access to antenatal care of a shift to remote delivery. It is not a simple swap: it restructures many aspects of candidacy for care in ways that pose risks of amplifying existing intersectional inequalities that lead to poorer outcomes. Addressing these challenges through policy and practice action is needed to tackle these risks.

Guiding organisational decision-making about COVID-19 asymptomatic testing in workplaces: mixed-method study to inform an ethical framework.

BACKGROUND: Workplace programmes to test staff for asymptomatic COVID-19 infection have become common, but raise a number of ethical challenges. In this article, we report the findings of a consultation that informed the development of an ethical framework for organisational decision-making about such programmes. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method consultation - a survey and semi-structured interviews during November-December 2020 in a UK case study organisation that had introduced asymptomatic testing for all staff working on-site in its buildings. Analysis of closed-ended survey data was conducted descriptively. An analysis approach based on the Framework Method was used for the open-ended survey responses and interview data. The analyses were then integrated to facilitate systematic analysis across themes. Inferences were based on the integrated findings and combined with other inputs (literature review, ethical analysis, legal and public health guidance, expert discussions) to develop an ethical framework. RESULTS: The consultation involved 61 staff members from the case study organisation (50 survey respondents and 11 interview participants). There was strong support for the asymptomatic testing programme: 90% of the survey respondents viewed it as helpful or very helpful. Open-ended survey responses and interviews gave insight into participants' concerns, including those relating to goal drift, risk of false negatives, and potential negative impacts for household members and people whose roles lacked contractual and financial stability. Integration of the consultation findings and the other inputs identified the importance of a whole-system approach with appropriate support for the key control measure of isolation following positive tests. The need to build trust in the testing programme, for example through effective communication from leaders, was also emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: The consultation, together with other inputs, informed an ethical framework intended to support employers. The framework may support organisational decision-making in areas ranging from design and operation of the programme through to choices about participation. The framework is likely to benefit from further consultation and refinement in new settings.

Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it. METHODS: This UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers. FINDINGS: Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.

Qualitative study of candidacy and access to secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.

Qualitative study of candidacy and access to secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open, required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.

A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

Remote care for mental health: qualitative study with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Of 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic. RESULTS: Experiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic 'safe space' challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost. CONCLUSIONS: Though remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.