BackgroundAdvanced Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians in their decision-making process, generating recommendations based on up-to-date scientific evidence. Although this technology has the potential to improve the quality of patient care, its mere provision does not guarantee uptake: even where CDSSs are available, clinicians often fail to adopt their recommendations. This study examines the barriers and facilitators to the uptake of an evidence-based CDSS as perceived by diverse health professionals in hospitals at different stages of CDSS adoption.MethodsQualitative study conducted as part of a series of randomized controlled trials of CDSSs. The sample includes two hospitals using a CDSS and two hospitals that aim to adopt a CDSS in the future. We interviewed physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the boards of directors (n = 30). We used a constant comparative approach to develop a framework for guiding implementation.ResultsWe identified six clusters of experiences of, and attitudes towards CDSSs, which we label as “positions.” The six positions represent a gradient of acquisition of control over CDSSs (from low to high) and are characterized by different types of barriers to CDSS uptake. The most severe barriers (prevalent in the first positions) include clinicians’ perception that the CDSSs may reduce their professional autonomy or may be used against them in the event of medical-legal controversies. Moving towards the last positions, these barriers are substituted by technical and usability problems related to the technology interface. When all barriers are overcome, CDSSs are perceived as a working tool at the service of its users, integrating clinicians’ reasoning and fostering organizational learning.ConclusionsBarriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs are dynamic and may exist prior to their introduction in clinical contexts; providing a static list of obstacles and facilitators, irrespective of the specific implementation phase and context, may not be sufficient or useful to facilitate uptake. Factors such as clinicians’ attitudes towards scientific evidences and guidelines, the quality of inter-disciplinary relationships, and an organizational ethos of transparency and accountability need to be considered when exploring the readiness of a hospital to adopt CDSSs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0644-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be “non-essential”, deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants’ working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. Conclusions Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers.MethodsWe conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.ParticipantsOf 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.ResultsExperiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic ‘safe space’ challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.ConclusionsThough remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.

Maternity care continues to be associated with avoidable harm that can result in serious disability and profound anguish for women, their children, and their families, and in high costs for healthcare systems. As in other areas of healthcare, improvement efforts have typically focused either on implementing and evaluating specific interventions, or on identifying the contextual features that may be generative of safety (e.g. structures, processes, behaviour, practices, and values), but the dialogue between these two approaches has remained limited. In this article, we report a positive deviance case study of a high-performing UK maternity unit to examine how it achieved and sustained excellent safety outcomes. Based on 143 h of ethnographic observations in the maternity unit, 12 semi-structured interviews, and two focus groups with staff, we identified six mechanisms that appeared to be important for safety: collective competence; insistence on technical proficiency; monitoring, coordination, and distributed cognition; clearly articulated and constantly reinforced standards of practice, behaviour, and ethics; monitoring multiple sources of intelligence about the unit's state of safety; and a highly intentional approach to safety and improvement. These mechanisms were nurtured and sustained through both a specific intervention (known as the PROMPT programme) and, importantly, the unit's contextual features: intervention and context shaped each other in both direct and indirect ways. The mechanisms were also influenced by the unit's structural conditions, such as staffing levels and physical environment. This study enhances understanding of what makes a maternity unit safe, paving the way for better design of improvement approaches. It also advances the debate on quality and safety improvement by offering a theoretically and empirically grounded analysis of the interplay between interventions and context of implementation.