Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study.

Mary Ann Adams, Charlotte Bevan, Maria Booker, Julie Hartley, Alexander Edward Heazell, Elsa Montgomery, Natalie Sanford, Maureen Treadwell, Jane Sandall
{"title":"Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study.","authors":"Mary Ann Adams, Charlotte Bevan, Maria Booker, Julie Hartley, Alexander Edward Heazell, Elsa Montgomery, Natalie Sanford, Maureen Treadwell, Jane Sandall","doi":"10.3310/YTDF8015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>We completed <i>n</i> = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 22","pages":"1-159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/YTDF8015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved.

Objectives: To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement.

Design: A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases.

Setting: National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2).

Participants: We completed n = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families.

Results: The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced.

Limitations: Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups.

Conclusions: We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

加强英国国家医疗服务系统产科服务的公开披露:DISCERN 现实主义评估研究。
背景:在英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)的产科服务中,有一项政策推动改善对受伤害家庭的公开披露:英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)的产科服务政策推动改善对受害家庭的公开披露,但有关如何实现更好做法的信息却很有限:从家庭、医生、助产士和服务机构的角度出发,确定改善公开披露的关键因素,并为改善服务提供可操作的证据:设计:采用现实主义方法,分三个阶段进行定性研究。第一阶段:两篇文献综述:对 2013 年后国家医疗服务体系政策的范围综述和对初步改进方案理论的现实主义综合;对国家医疗服务体系孕产妇安全和家庭方面的国家利益相关者进行访谈研究。第 2 阶段:在英格兰三个国家医疗服务体系的孕产妇服务机构进行深入的人种学个案研究。第 3 阶段:与研究参与者举行解释性论坛。患者和公众参与战略是所有研究阶段的基础:全国招募(研究阶段 1 和 3);三家英国产科服务机构(研究阶段 2):我们完成了 n = 142 次访谈,其中包括 27 次家庭访谈;93 个小时的人种学观察,包括 9 个月内的 52 次服务和家庭会议;以及约 69 人参加的解释性论坛,其中包括 11 个家庭:政策审查发现,受伤家庭已从被动的接受者转变为事故后学习的积极贡献者,但在改善家庭参与方面缺乏可操作的指导。现实主义综合研究发现,在国际孕产妇文献中,公开披露干预措施的有效性证据不足,但全组织范围的干预措施则有所改善。最近的证据主要来自英国。研究确定并探讨了公开披露的五个关键机制:有意义地承认伤害;受影响者参与审查/调查;支持家庭自己的感性认识;熟练临床医生(医生和助产士)的心理安全;以及知道护理已经得到改善。我们注意到,每个家庭都需要根据自己的情况来理解事件。一些临床医生有选择性地对一些家庭采取了更加开放的态度。研究证明了对抗性的医疗法律环境和对实现激励目标的有限支持所带来的挑战:研究是在大流行之后进行的,服务压力非常大。案例研究的人种学研究对象是三家业绩较好的服务机构:案例研究结果的概括性有限。由于研究人员无法进入,因此无法观察健康安全调查处的调查情况。家庭招募没有反映人口的多样性,非白人家庭、残疾家庭、其他社会边缘群体和弱势群体的代表性有限:结论:我们认为有必要在整个服务系统中确保受伤家庭处于事故后事件的中心位置,确保临床医生接受适当的培训和事故后护理,并在一些临床医生为一些家庭所做的个别努力之外,促进与家庭的持续接触。研究表明,有必要修订法律以促进国家医疗服务体系各组织对家庭的公开性,并对组织的家庭参与实践进行更广泛的改革。探讨研究结果在多大程度上适用于英国不同的孕产妇服务机构,并对如何在孕产妇服务研究中鼓励家庭多样性进行更广泛的反思:本研究已注册为 PROSPERO CRD42020164061。本研究已按照 RAMESES 现实主义指南进行了评估:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR award ref:17/99/85)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》(Health and Social Care Delivery Research)第12卷第22期。更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信