Patient and public co-creation of healthcare safety and healthcare system resilience: The case of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare system resilience is a conceptual approach that seeks to explore how health services adapt and respond to variability in demand and resources. As has been witnessed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services have undergone many reconfigurations. One understudied aspect of how the 'system' is able to adapt and respond is the contribution of key stakeholders-patients and families, and in the context of the pandemic, the general public as a whole. This study aimed to understand what people were doing during the first wave of the pandemic to protect the safety of their health, and the health of others from COVID-19, and the resilience of the healthcare system. METHODS: Social media (Twitter) was used as a method of recruitment due to its ability for social reach. Twenty-one participants took part in 57 semistructured interviews over three time points from June to September 2020. The included an initial interview and invitation to two follow-up interviews after 3 and 6 weeks. Interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom-an encrypted secure video conferencing software. A reflexive thematic analysis approach to analysis was used. RESULTS: Three themes, each with its own subthemes were identified in the analysis: (1) A 'new safety normal'; (2) Existing vulnerabilities and heightened safety and (3) Are we all in this together? CONCLUSION: This study found that the public had a role in supporting the resilience of healthcare services and systems during the first wave of the pandemic by adapting their behaviour to protect themselves and others, and to avoid overwhelming the National Health Service. People who had existing vulnerabilities were more likely to experience safety gaps in their care, and be required to step in to support their safety, despite it being more difficult for them to do so. It may be that the most vulnerable were previously required to do this extra work to support the safety of their care and that the pandemic has just illuminated this issue. Future research should explore existing vulnerabilities and inequalities, and the heightened safety consequences created by the pandemic. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC), Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Research Fellow and NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC Patient Involvement in Patient Safety theme lay leader are involved in the preparation of a lay version of the findings within this manuscript.

Improving the safety and experience of transitions from hospital to home: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of the 'Your Care Needs You' intervention versus usual care.

BACKGROUND: The 'Your Care Needs You' (YCNY) intervention aims to increase the safety and experience of transitions for older people through greater patient involvement during the hospital stay. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted on NHS inpatient wards (clusters) where ≥ 40% of patients were routinely ≥ 75 years. Wards were randomised to YCNY or usual care using an unequal allocation ratio (3:2). We aimed to recruit up to 20 patients per ward. Follow-up included routine data collection and questionnaires at 5-, 30-, and 90-days post-discharge. Eligible patients were ≥ 75 years, discharged home, stayed overnight on participating wards, and could read and understand English. The trial assessed the feasibility of delivering YCNY and the trial methodology through recruitment rates, outcome completion rates, and a qualitative evaluation. The accuracy of using routinely coded data for the primary outcome in the definitive trial was assessed by extracting discharge information for up to ten nonindividual consenting patients per ward. RESULTS: Ten wards were randomised (6 intervention, 4 control). One ward withdrew, and two wards were unable to deliver the intervention. Seven-hundred twenty-one patients were successfully screened, and 161 were recruited (95 intervention, 66 control). The patient post-discharge attrition rate was 17.4% (n = 28). Primary outcome data were gathered for 91.9% of participants with 75.2% and 59.0% providing secondary outcome data at 5 and 30 days post-discharge respectively. Item completion within questionnaires was generally high. Post-discharge follow-up was terminated early due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting 90-day response rates (16.8%). Data from 88 nonindividual consenting patients identified an error rate of 15% when using routinely coded data for the primary outcome. No unexpected serious adverse events were identified. Most patients viewed YCNY favourably. Staff agreed with it in principle, but ward pressures and organisational contexts hampered implementation. There was a need to sustain engagement, provide clarity on roles and responsibilities, and account for fluctuations in patients' health, capacity, and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: If implementation challenges can be overcome, YCNY represents a step towards involving older people as partners in their care to improve the safety and experience of their transitions from hospital to home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 51154948.

Differences in comprehending and acting on pandemic health risk information: a qualitative study using mental models.

BACKGROUND: A worldwide pandemic of a new and unknown virus is characterised by scientific uncertainty. However, despite this uncertainty, health authorities must still communicate complex health risk information to the public. The mental models approach to risk communication describes how people perceive and make decisions about complex risks, with the aim of identifying decision-relevant information that can be incorporated into risk communication interventions. This study explored how people use mental models to make sense of scientific information and apply it to their lives and behaviour in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: This qualitative study enrolled 15 male and female participants of different ages, with different levels of education and occupational backgrounds and from different geographical regions of Norway. The participants were interviewed individually, and the interview data were subjected to thematic analysis. The interview data were compared to a expert model of COVID-19 health risk communication based on online information from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Materials in the interview data not represented by expert model codes were coded inductively. The participants' perceptions of and behaviours related to health risk information were analysed across three themes: virus transmission, risk mitigation and consequences of COVID-19. RESULTS: The results indicate that people placed different meanings on the medical and scientific words used by experts to explain the pandemic (e.g., virus transmission and the reproduction number). While some people wanted to understand why certain behaviour and activities were considered high risk, others preferred simple, clear messages explaining what to do and how to protect themselves. Similarly, information about health consequences produced panic in some interviewees and awareness in others. CONCLUSION: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to public health risk communication. Empowering people with decision-relevant information necessitates targeted and balanced risk communication.

Creating Effective, Evidence-Based Video Communication of Public Health Science (COVCOM Study): Protocol for a Sequential Mixed Methods Effect Study.

BACKGROUND: The nonlinear nature of contagious diseases and the potential for exponential growth can be difficult to grasp for the general public. This has strong implications for public health communication, which needs to be both easily accessible and efficient. A pandemic is an extreme situation, and the accompanying strict societal measures are generally easier to accept if one understands the underlying reasoning behind them. Bringing about informed attitude change and achieving compliance to strict restrictions requires explanations of scientific concepts and terminologies that laypersons can understand. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the project is to develop effective, evidence-based modes of video communication for translating complex, but important, health messages about pandemics to both the general population and decision makers. The study uses COVID-19 as a case to learn and prepare society for handling the ongoing and future pandemics, as well as to provide evidence-based tools for the science communication toolbox. METHODS: The project applies a mixed methods design, combining qualitative methods (eg, interviews, observational studies, literature reviews) and quantitative methods (eg, randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). The project brings together researchers from a wide range of academic fields, as well as communication industry professionals. RESULTS: This study has received funding from the Trond Mohn Foundation through the Research Council of Norway's "COVID-19 Emergency Call for Proposals" March 2020. Recruitment and data collection for the exploratory first phase of the project ran from February 2021 to March 2021. Creative communication work started in May 2021, and the production of videos for use in the RCTs in the final phase of the project started in September 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVCOM project will take on several grand challenges within the field of communicating science and provide evidence-based tools to the science communication toolbox. A long-term goal of the project is to contribute to the creation of a more resilient health care system by developing communication responses tailormade for different audiences, preparing society for any future pandemic. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34275.

Health authorities' health risk communication with the public during pandemics: a rapid scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Responses from the H1N1 swine flu pandemic and the recent COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic provide an opportunity for insight into the role of health authorities' ways of communicating health risk information to the public. We aimed to synthesise the existing evidence regarding different modes of communication used by health authorities in health risk communication with the public during a pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for publications in English from January 2009 through October 2020, covering both the full H1N1 pandemic and the response phase during the COVID-19 pandemic. The search resulted in 1440 records, of which 48 studies met our eligibility criteria. RESULTS: The present review identified studies across a broad interdisciplinary field of health risk communication. The majority focused on the H1N1 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. A content analysis of the studies identified three categories for modes of communication: i) communication channels, ii) source credibility and iii) how the message is communicated. The identified studies on social media focused mainly on content and engagement, while studies on the effect of the use of social media and self-protective behaviour were lacking. Studies on the modes of communication that take the diversity of receivers in the field into account are lacking. A limited number of studies of health authorities' use of graphic and audio-visual means were identified, yet these did not consider/evaluate creative communication choices. CONCLUSION: Experimental studies that investigate the effect of health authorities' videos and messages on social media platforms and self-protective behaviour are needed. More studies are needed across the fields of health risk communication and media studies, including visual communication, web design, video and digital marketing, at a time when online digital communication is central to reaching the public.