Infrastructure challenges to doing health research "where populations with the most disease live" in Covid times-a response to Rai et al. (2021).

BACKGROUND: The failure of randomised controlled trials to adequately reflect areas of highest health need have been repeatedly highlighted. This has implications for the validity and generalisability of findings, for equity and efficiency, but also for research capacity-building. Rai et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 21:80, 2021) recently argued that the poor alignment between UK clinical research activity (specifically multi-centre RCTs) and local prevalence of disease was, in part, the outcome of behaviour and decision-making by Chief Investigators involved in trial research. They argued that a shift in research culture was needed. Following our recent multi-site mixed methods evaluative study about NHS 111 online we identify some of the additional structural barriers to delivering health research "where populations with the most disease live", accounting for the Covid-19 disruption to processes and delivery. METHODS: The NHS 111 study used a mixed-method research design, including interviews with healthcare staff and stakeholders within the primary, urgent and emergency health care system, and a survey of users and potential users of the NHS 111 online service. This paper draws on data collated by the research team during site identification and selection, as we followed an action research cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. The process results were discussed among the authors, and grouped into the two themes presented. RESULTS: We approached 22 primary and secondary care sites across England, successfully recruiting half of these. Time from initial approach to first participant recruitment in successful sites ranged from one to ten months. This paper describes frontline bureaucratic barriers to research delivery and recruitment in the local Clinical Research Network system and secondary care sites carrying large research portfolios, alongside the adaptive practices of research practitioners that mitigate these. CONCLUSIONS: This paper augments the recommendations of Rai et al., describing delays encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggesting in addition to cultural change, it may be additionally important to dismantle infrastructural barriers and improve support to research teams so they can conduct health research "where populations with the most disease live".

Infrastructure challenges to doing health research “where populations with the most disease live” in Covid times—a response to Rai et al. (2021)

Background The failure of randomised controlled trials to adequately reflect areas of highest health need have been repeatedly highlighted. This has implications for the validity and generalisability of findings, for equity and efficiency, but also for research capacity-building. Rai et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 21:80, 2021) recently argued that the poor alignment between UK clinical research activity (specifically multi-centre RCTs) and local prevalence of disease was, in part, the outcome of behaviour and decision-making by Chief Investigators involved in trial research. They argued that a shift in research culture was needed. Following our recent multi-site mixed methods evaluative study about NHS 111 online we identify some of the additional structural barriers to delivering health research “where populations with the most disease live”, accounting for the Covid-19 disruption to processes and delivery. Methods The NHS 111 study used a mixed-method research design, including interviews with healthcare staff and stakeholders within the primary, urgent and emergency health care system, and a survey of users and potential users of the NHS 111 online service. This paper draws on data collated by the research team during site identification and selection, as we followed an action research cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. The process results were discussed among the authors, and grouped into the two themes presented. Results We approached 22 primary and secondary care sites across England, successfully recruiting half of these. Time from initial approach to first participant recruitment in successful sites ranged from one to ten months. This paper describes frontline bureaucratic barriers to research delivery and recruitment in the local Clinical Research Network system and secondary care sites carrying large research portfolios, alongside the adaptive practices of research practitioners that mitigate these. Conclusions This paper augments the recommendations of Rai et al., describing delays encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggesting in addition to cultural change, it may be additionally important to dismantle infrastructural barriers and improve support to research teams so they can conduct health research “where populations with the most disease live”.

Safety implications of remote assessments for suspected COVID-19: qualitative study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of remote triage and assessment early in the pandemic raised questions about patient safety. We sought to capture patients and clinicians' experiences of the management of suspected acute COVID-19 and generate wider lessons to inform safer care. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary healthcare. A subset of relevant data was drawn from five linked in-pandemic qualitative studies. The data set, on a total of 87 participants recruited via social media, patient groups and snowballing, comprised free text excerpts from narrative interviews (10 survivors of acute COVID-19), online focus groups (20 patients and 30 clinicians), contributions to a Delphi panel (12 clinicians) and fieldnotes from an online workshop (15 patients, clinicians and stakeholders). METHODS: Data were uploaded onto NVivo. Coding was initially deductive and informed by WHO and Institute of Medicine frameworks of quality and safety. Further inductive analysis refined our theorisation using a wider range of theories-including those of risk, resilience, crisis management and social justice. RESULTS: In the early weeks of the pandemic, patient safety was compromised by the driving logic of 'stay home' and 'protect the NHS', in which both patients and clinicians were encouraged to act in a way that helped reduce pressure on an overloaded system facing a novel pathogen with insufficient staff, tools, processes and systems. Furthermore, patients and clinicians observed a shift to a more transactional approach characterised by overuse of algorithms and decision support tools, limited empathy and lack of holistic assessment. CONCLUSION: Lessons from the pandemic suggest three key strategies are needed to prevent avoidable deaths and inequalities in the next crisis: (1) strengthen system resilience (including improved resourcing and staffing; support of new tools and processes; and recognising primary care's role as the 'risk sink' of the healthcare system); (2) develop evidence-based triage and scoring systems; and (3) address social vulnerability.

Challenges of safeguarding via remote consulting during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required general practice to rapidly adapt to remote consultations and assessment of patients, creating new, and exacerbating existing, vulnerabilities for many patients. AIM: To explore GP perspectives and concerns about safeguarding practice during the pandemic, focusing on challenges and opportunities created by remote consultation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study. METHOD: Eighteen GPs from Oxford, London, Southampton, Liverpool, Manchester, and Reading were interviewed between June and November 2020, using a flexible topic guide and fictional vignettes to explore child and adult safeguarding scenarios. Interviews were audio-recorded, thematically coded, and analysed. RESULTS: GPs worried about missing observational information during remote consultations and that conversations might not be private or safe. Loss of continuity and pooled triage lists were seen as further weakening safeguarding opportunities. GPs experienced remote consulting as more 'transactional', with reduced opportunities to explore 'other reasons' including new safeguarding needs. However, they also recognised that remote consulting created opportunities for some vulnerable patients. While supporting known vulnerable patients was difficult, identifying new or unknown vulnerabilities was harder still. Most reported that remote consulting during COVID-19 was harder, riskier, and emotionally draining, contributing to increased GP anxiety and reduced job satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The GPs interviewed raised important concerns about how to identify and manage safeguarding in the context of remote consultations. Current guidance recommends face-to-face consultation for safeguarding concerns, but pressure to use remote forms of access (within or beyond the pandemic) and the fact that safeguarding needs may be unknown makes this an issue that warrants urgent attention.

Clinical ethnography in severe mental illness: a clinical method to tackle social determinants and structural racism in personalised care.

Ethnic inequalities in the experiences and outcomes of severe mental illness are well established. These include a higher incidence of severe mental illnesses (psychoses), adverse pathways into and through care, including crisis care, police and criminal justice systems involvement, and care under the powers of the Mental Health Act. The situation persists despite awareness and is driven by a mixture of the social determinants of poor health, societal disadvantage and structural racism, as well as conflictual interactions with care systems, which themselves are configured in ways that sustain or deepen these inequalities. Although training and education are often proposed, this is not shown to have sustained effects. Clinical processes (interviewing/assessment/formulation/intervention) need to address systemic influences and improve the cultural precision with which care is delivered, organised and commissioned. We discuss clinical ethnography and present evidence of its value in addressing systemic as well as individual care needs for diverse communities.