ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Emergency medicine (EM) doctors are often required to manage a diverse set of complex challenges; navigating direct patient care, systemic issues and inter-professional interactions. Leadership is well recognised as crucial in optimising both the delivery and the quality of patient care. There is a clear need to gain greater understanding of the reality of EM leadership through exploring doctors' experience and perception of leadership in EM, yet there is a paucity of research focusing on this area. The objective of the present study was to explore the research question: 'What are the experiences and perceptions of leadership by EM doctors?' METHODS: This single-site qualitative study was undertaken using semi-structured in-depth individual interviews to collect data. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and de-identified. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed by the research team with the aid of DelveTool software. RESULTS: Our sample included nine participants incorporating consultants and registrars. Three major themes were identified: (i) situational tensions, (ii) relational tensions and (iii) leadership style tensions. Each of these was further explored with subthemes discussed separately. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership within the ED is complex and multifaceted, with doctors required to navigate many competing tensions. The present study highlighted key areas for future leadership development, including situational awareness, emotional intelligence and a fluid approach to leadership styles. The present study provides an important step towards enhancing the development of targeted leadership training for EM doctors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in critically unwell patients with type 1 respiratory failure. In an attempt to reduce the number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, prone positioning (PP) of non-intubated patients has been added to many hospital guidelines around the world. We set out to conduct a systematic review of the evidence relating to PP in the non-intubated patient with type 1 respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 and other causes. METHODS: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. A literature search of major databases and grey sources was conducted. Studies were assessed for inclusion by two authors according to prespecified criteria. Data collection processes, analysis and risk of bias assessment were planned. RESULTS: 31 studies were included for analysis. These consisted of prospective and retrospective case series, cohort studies and case reports. None of the studies included a comparison group. No statistical analysis was performed. Descriptive data of included studies and narrative synthesis are presented. CONCLUSIONS: No high-quality randomised controlled trials were found and thus evidence in relation to PP as a treatment for non-intubated patients with type 1 respiratory failure is lacking.
