Practices and views on fetal heart monitoring:A structured observation and interview study

Objective: To assess and explain deviations from recommended practice in National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines in relation to fetal heart monitoring. Design: Qualitative study. Setting: Large teaching hospital in the UK. Sample: Sixty-six hours of observation of 25 labours and interviews with 20 midwives of varying grades. Methods: Structured observations of labour and semistructured interviews with midwives. Interviews were undertaken using a prompt guide, audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method, assisted by QSR N5 software. Main outcome measures: Deviations from recommended practice in relation to fetal monitoring and insights into why these occur. Results: All babies involved in the study were safely delivered, but 243 deviations from recommended practice in relation to NICE guidelines on fetal monitoring were identified, with the majority (80%) of these occurring in relation to documentation. Other deviations from recommended practice included indications for use of electronic fetal heart monitoring and conduct of fetal heart monitoring. There is evidence of difficulties with availability and maintenance of equipment, and some deficits in staff knowledge and skill. Differing orientations towards fetal monitoring were reported by midwives, which were likely to have impacts on practice. The initiation, management, and interpretation of fetal heart monitoring is complex and distributed across time, space, and professional boundaries, and practices in relation to fetal heart monitoring need to be understood within an organisational and social context. Conclusion: Some deviations from best practice guidelines may be rectified through straightforward interventions including improved systems for managing equipment and training. Other deviations from recommended practice need to be understood as the outcomes of complex processes that are likely to defy easy resolution. © RCOG 2006.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness:focus group study

Objective: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

A patient's perspective:the impact of adverse drug reactions on patients and their views on reporting

What is known and objective: Adverse drug reactions to prescribed medication are relatively common events. However, the impact such reactions have on patients and their attitude to reporting such events have only been poorly explored. Previous studies relying on self-reporting patients indicate that altruism is an important factor. In the United Kingdom, patient reporting started in 2005; though, numbers of serious reports remain low. Method: A purposive sample of fifteen patients who had been admitted to an inner city hospital with an adverse drug reaction were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Patients were asked to relate in their own words their experience of an adverse drug reaction. Patient's reactions to the information leaflet, adherence to treatment and use of other sources of information on medication were assessed. Interviews were recorded, and a thematic analysis of patients'responses was performed. Results and discussion: Analysis of the patient interviews demonstrated the reality of being admitted to hospital is often a frightening process with a significant emotional cost. Anger, isolation, resentment and blame were common factors, particularly when medicines had been prescribed for acute conditions. For patients with chronic conditions, a more phlegmatic approach was seen especially with conditions with a strong support networks. Patients felt that communication and information should have been more readily available from the health care professional who prescribed the medication, although few had read the patient information leaflet. Only a minority of patients linked the medication they had taken to the adverse event, although some had received false reassurance that the drug was not related to their illness creating additional barriers. In contrast to previous studies, many patients felt that adverse drug reporting was not their concern, particularly as they obtained little direct benefit from it. The majority of patients were unaware of the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK for patient reporting. Even when explained, the scheme was felt too cold and impersonal and not a patient's 'job'. What is new and conclusion: Patients having a severe adverse drug reaction following an acute illness felt negative emotions towards their health care provider. Those with a chronic condition rationalized the event and coped better with its impact. Neither group felt that reporting the adverse reaction was their responsibility. Encouraging patients to report remains important but expecting patients to report solely for altruistic purposes may be unrealistic. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user’s lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM.

Does the subject content of the pharmacy degree course influence the community pharmacist’s views on competencies for practice?

Do community pharmacists coming from different educational backgrounds rank the importance of competences for practice differently-or is the way in which they see their profession more influenced by practice than university education? A survey was carried out on 68 competences for pharmacy practice in seven countries with different pharmacy education systems in terms of the relative importance of the subject areas chemical and medicinal sciences. Community pharmacists were asked to rank the competences in terms of relative importance for practice; competences were divided into personal and patient-care competences. The ranking was very similar in the seven countries suggesting that evaluation of competences for practice is based more on professional experience than on prior university education. There were some differences for instance in research-related competences and these may be influenced, by education.

Positionality and Comparisons: Critical Views on Qualitative Research across Asia

Ce cahier est basé sur la réflexion autobiographique de deux chercheuses ayant effectué des recherches qualitatives et ethnographiques, de 2008 à 2014, en Asie centrale et du Sud-­‐Est. Les expériences sur le terrain constituent des moyens de comparaisons dans le présent document. En mettant l’accent sur le positionnement sur le terrain, l’étude montre que, d’abord, il est essentiel de détenir une poste intermédiaire et de parler une langue locale afin de garantir un accès et de mener des activités de recherche sur le terrain. Deuxièmement, différentes régions prédéterminent des contextes culturels et politiques ponctuels qui, à leur tour, façonneraient la recherche en sciences sociales. Troisièmement, le fait d’être une femme présente à la fois des avantages et des inconvénients. Enfin, en termes de méthodologie, les stages et les entrevues se sont avérés des méthodes fiables pour la collecte des données empiriques sur les régions ci-­‐dessus mentionnées, sans pour autant permettre de bâtir la confiance.

Positionality and Comparisons: Critical Views on Qualitative Research across Asia

Ce cahier est basé sur la réflexion autobiographique de deux chercheuses ayant effectué des recherches qualitatives et ethnographiques, de 2008 à 2014, en Asie centrale et du Sud-­‐Est. Les expériences sur le terrain constituent des moyens de comparaisons dans le présent document. En mettant l’accent sur le positionnement sur le terrain, l’étude montre que, d’abord, il est essentiel de détenir une poste intermédiaire et de parler une langue locale afin de garantir un accès et de mener des activités de recherche sur le terrain. Deuxièmement, différentes régions prédéterminent des contextes culturels et politiques ponctuels qui, à leur tour, façonneraient la recherche en sciences sociales. Troisièmement, le fait d’être une femme présente à la fois des avantages et des inconvénients. Enfin, en termes de méthodologie, les stages et les entrevues se sont avérés des méthodes fiables pour la collecte des données empiriques sur les régions ci-­‐dessus mentionnées, sans pour autant permettre de bâtir la confiance.

Adolescent substance use in the context of the family: a qualitative study of young people’s views on parent-child attachments, parenting style and parental substance use

Background: Adolescent substance use can place youth at risk of a range of poor outcomes. Few studies have attempted to explore in-depth young people’s perceptions of how familial processes and dynamics influence adolescent substance use.
Objectives: This paper aimed to explore risk and protective factors for youth substance use within the context of the family with a view to informing family based interventions.
Methods: Nine focus groups supplemented with participatory techniques were facilitated with a purposive sample of sixty-two young people (age 13-17 years) from post-primary schools across Northern Ireland. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Three themes emerged from the data: 1) parent-child attachments, 2) parenting style and 3) parental and sibling substance misuse. Parent-child attachment was identified as an important factor in protecting adolescents from substance use in addition to effective parenting particularly an authoritative style supplemented with parental monitoring and strong parent-child communication to encourage child disclosure. Family substance use was considered to impact on children’s substance use if exposed at an early age and the harms associated with parental substance misuse were discussed in detail. Both parent and child gender differences were cross-cutting themes.
Conclusion: Parenting programmes (tailored to mothers and fathers) may benefit young people via components on authoritative styles, parental monitoring, communication, nurturing attachments and parent-child conflict. Youth living with more complex issues, e.g. parental substance misuse, may benefit from programmes delivered beyond the family environment e.g. school based settings.

‘Potentially inappropriate or specifically appropriate?’ Qualitative evaluation of general practitioners views on prescribing, polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older people in primary care, as evidenced by a significant body of quantitative research. However, relatively few qualitative studies have investigated the phenomenon of PIP and its underlying processes from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this paper is to explore qualitatively, GP perspectives regarding prescribing and PIP in older primary care patients.

Method: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention to decrease PIP in older patients (≥70 years) in Ireland. Interviews were conducted with GP participants (both intervention and control) from the OPTI-SCRIPT cluster RCT as part of the trial process evaluation between January and July 2013. Interviews were conducted by one interviewer and audio recorded. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted.

Results: Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted (13 male; 4 female). Three main, inter-related themes emerged (complex prescribing environment, paternalistic doctor-patient relationship, and relevance of PIP concept). Patient complexity (e.g. polypharmacy, multimorbidity), as well as prescriber complexity (e.g. multiple prescribers, poor communication, restricted autonomy) were all identified as factors contributing to a complex prescribing environment where PIP could occur, as was a paternalistic-doctor patient relationship. The concept of PIP was perceived to be of variable usefulness to GPs and the criteria to measure it may be at odds with the complex processes of prescribing for this patient population.

Conclusions: Several inter-related factors contributing to the occurrence of PIP were identified, some of which may be amenable to intervention. Improvement strategies focused on improved management of polypharmacy and multimorbidity, and communication across primary and secondary care could result in substantial improvements in PIP.