Person-centred data collection methods to embed the authentic voice of people who experience health challenges

Supporting health and social care professionals in serious illness conversations: Development, validation, and preliminary evaluation of an educational booklet

Serious illness conversations aim to align the care process with the goals and preferences of adult patients suffering from any advanced disease. They represent a challenge for healthcare professionals and require specific skills. Conversation guides consistent with task-centered instructional strategies may be particularly helpful to improve the quality of communication. This study aims to develop, validate, and preliminarily evaluate an educational booklet to support Italian social and healthcare professionals in serious illness conversations. A three-step approach, including development, validation, and evaluation, was followed. A co-creation process with meaningful stakeholders led to the development of the booklet, validated by 15 experts on clarity, completeness, coherence, and relevance. It underwent testing on readability (Gulpease index, 0 = lowest-100 = maximum) and design (Baker Able Leaflet Design criteria, 0 = worst to 32 = best). Twenty-two professionals with different scope of practice and care settings evaluated acceptability (acceptable if score ≥30), usefulness, feasibility to use (1 = not at all to 10 = extremely), and perceived acquired knowledge (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). After four rounds of adjustments, the booklet scored 97% for relevance, 60 for readability, and 25/32 for design. In all, 18 (81.8%), 19 (86.4%) and 17 (77.3%) professionals deemed the booklet acceptable, moderate to highly useful, and feasible to use, respectively; 18/22 perceived gain in knowledge and all would recommend it to colleagues. The booklet has good readability, excellent design, high content validity, and a high degree of perceived usefulness and acquired knowledge. The booklet is tailored to users' priorities, mirrors their most frequent daily practice challenges, and offers 1-minute, 2-minute and 5-minute solutions for each scenario. The co-creation process ensured the development of an educational resource that could be useful regardless of the scope of practice and the care setting to support professionals in serious illness conversations.

Torture survivors' experiences of receiving surgical treatment indicating re- traumatization

Due to the invasive nature of surgical procedures and the involvement of medical personnel, torture survivors may experience re-traumatization during surgical treatment. This study aimed to explore torture survivors' experiences of re-traumatization during surgical treatment as well as the process by which trauma-related emotions and responses are evoked during surgical treatment for torture survivors. Eight men, aged 45 to 72, from four different countries, who have lived in Norway for 6-40 years, were recruited. We assessed torture and surgical care experiences through in-depth interviews, and the data were analyzed using thematic analysis, resulting in five themes: (1) Interactions with healthcare providers, (2) Reactions during treatment, (3) Triggers causing re-experiences, (4) Avoidance, and (5) Suggestions to healthcare providers. In this study, survivors reported challenges receiving surgical treatment, indicating re-traumatization and difficulty returning to daily life following treatment. Participants reported little collaboration in care-related decision-making processes, lack of recognition of torture by healthcare providers involved in surgical care and experiencing healthcare professionals' attitudes as a source of perplexity, frustration, and despair. Exacerbation of torture memories throughout treatment and re-experiencing of trauma symptoms aggravated these difficulties. Our findings suggest that surgical treatment can remind torture survivors of the traumatic aspects of torture, eliciting strong reactions and feelings like those experienced during torture.

Chemical restraint as behavioural euthanasia: case studies from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety

BACKGROUND

The prescription of psychotropic medication to older people living with dementia in residential aged care has become an increasing concern. The use of prescription medication is often prefaced as a way of preventing harm to self and others. However, the use of such medications has been considered a way of managing some of the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Using a large secondary data set, this study aimed to identify the precursors and mediating factors that influence the use of chemical restraint of older people in residential aged care.

METHODS

Publicly available documents from the Australian Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety were used as the data corpus for this study. Keywords were used to search over 7000 documents to extract a set of topic-related content. We identified the cases of seven people in respite or permanent residential aged care who had been prescribed or administered psychotropic medication under circumstances that appeared to demonstrate chemical restraint. All documents relating to the cases were collated for our data set. A descriptive case study approach to analysis was taken.

RESULTS

Four key descriptive patterns were identified: labelling and limits to tolerance, pushing prescription as a solution, coverups and avoiding consent, and family's fight for liberty. Triangulation across the data and academic literature supports the findings.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide some insight into how chemical restrain happens. Featuring throughout the cases were reports of a lack of workforce capacity to care for and support residents exhibiting dementia behaviours. Prescription of psychotropic medications featured as a "first resort" care solution. Family and friends found such approaches to care unacceptable and frequently challenged the practice. Where consent for prescription was explicitly denied, more covert approaches are demonstrated. Family awareness, presence, and advocacy were key to challenging the practice of chemical restraint. Shortfalls in the capacity of the current workforce come into play here. However, workforce shortcomings can no longer mask this ubiquitous practice. Just as importantly the spotlight needs to be turned on the prescribers and the providers.

Shifting the social determinants of food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Australian experience

We aimed to explore experiences of government-led actions on the social determinants of food insecurity during Australia's COVID-19 pandemic response (which included novel, yet temporary, social protection measures to support Australians facing hardship during state-wide lockdowns). During November-December 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with 24 Victorians who received government income support (prior to COVID-19) and the temporary COVID-19 specific payments. Interviews were guided by a theoretical understanding of the social determinants of health and health inequities, which we aligned to the social policy context. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, inductively coded, categorised and thematically analysed. Our sample included mostly women (n = 19) and single parents (n = 13). Interviews reflected four key themes. Firstly, participants described 'battles all around them' (i.e., competing financial, health and social stressors) that were not alleviated by temporary social policy changes and made healthy eating difficult to prioritise during the pandemic. Secondly, housing, income, job, and education priorities rendered food a lower and more flexible financial priority - even with 18 participants receiving temporary income increases from COVID-19 Supplements. Thirdly, given that food remained a lower and more flexible financial priority, families continued to purchase the cheapest and most affordable options (typically less healthful, more markedly price discounted). Finally, participants perceived the dominant public and policy rhetoric around income support policies and healthy eating to be inaccurate and shaming - often misrepresenting their lived experiences, both prior to and during COVID-19. Participants reported entrenched struggles with being able to afford basic living costs in a dignified manner during COVID-19, despite temporary social protection policy changes. To reduce inequities in population diets, a pre-requisite to health, all stakeholders must recognise an ongoing responsibility for adopting long-term food and social policies that genuinely improve lived experiences of food insecurity and poverty.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12571-022-01318-4.

Measuring with quality: the example of person-centred care

Qualitative data analysis should be embedded in routine health service measurement, management and organizational practices. The rigorous use of such analyses should become an institutional norm, comparable to the routine use of quantitative data. Our case is intended to have general relevance, but we develop it by reference to person-centred care and patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs). The increased use of qualitative data analysis of individualized PCOMs is a crucial complementary counterweight to steps towards the standardization of PCOMs. More broadly, our argument is that health care organizations cannot make confident judgements about whether they are offering appropriate care without collecting qualitative data on what matters to individual patients. Introducing properly supported and conducted qualitative data analyses is important in its own right, and also helps underpin the validity and usefulness of quantitative measurement.

Developing New Methods for Person-Centred Approaches to Adjudicate Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations in Realist Evaluation

Realist evaluation provides a general method of evaluating the application of interventions including policy, legislation, projects, and new processes in social settings such as law enforcement, healthcare and education. Realist evaluation focuses on what about interventions works, for whom, and in what circumstances, and there is a growing body of work using realist evaluation to analyse interventions in healthcare organizations, including those using Lean Six Sigma improvement methodologies. Whilst realist evaluation facilitates the analysis of interventions using both qualitative and quantitative research, there is little guidance given on methods of data collection and analysis. The purpose of this study is to address this lack of guidance through detailing the use of innovative person-centred methods of data collection and analysis in a realist evaluation that enabled us to understand the contribution of Lean Six Sigma to person-centred care and cultures. This use of person-centred principles in the adjudication of identified program theories has informed novel methods of collecting and analysing data in realist evaluation that facilitate a person-centred approach to working with research participants and a way of making the implicit explicit when adjudicating program theory.

'What is the risk to me from COVID-19?': Public involvement in providing mortality risk information for people with 'high-risk' conditions for COVID-19 (OurRisk.CoV)

Patients and public have sought mortality risk information throughout the pandemic, but their needs may not be served by current risk prediction tools. Our mixed methods study involved: (1) systematic review of published risk tools for prognosis, (2) provision and patient testing of new mortality risk estimates for people with high-risk conditions and (3) iterative patient and public involvement and engagement with qualitative analysis. Only one of 53 (2%) previously published risk tools involved patients or the public, while 11/53 (21%) had publicly accessible portals, but all for use by clinicians and researchers.Among people with a wide range of underlying conditions, there has been sustained interest and engagement in accessible and tailored, pre- and postpandemic mortality information. Informed by patient feedback, we provide such information in 'five clicks' (https://covid19-phenomics.org/OurRiskCoV.html), as context for decision making and discussions with health professionals and family members. Further development requires curation and regular updating of NHS data and wider patient and public engagement.