As qualitative research becomes increasingly recognized and valued, it is imperative that it is conducted in a rigorous and methodical manner to yield meaningful and useful results. To be accepted as trustworthy, qualitative researchers must demonstrate that data analysis has been conducted in a precise, consistent, and exhaustive manner through recording, systematizing, and disclosing the methods of analysis with enough detail to enable the reader to determine whether the process is credible. Although there are numerous examples of how to conduct qualitative research, few sophisticated tools are available to researchers for conducting a rigorous and relevant thematic analysis. The purpose of this article is to guide researchers using thematic analysis as a research method. We offer personal insights and practical examples, while exploring issues of rigor and trustworthiness. The process of conducting a thematic analysis is illustrated through the presentation of an auditable decision trail, guiding interpreting and representing textual data. We detail our step-by-step approach to exploring the effectiveness of strategic clinical networks in Alberta, Canada, in our mixed methods case study. This article contributes a purposeful approach to thematic analysis in order to systematize and increase the traceability and verification of the analysis.

No abstract

Aim The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of nurse managers during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Background There is a growing body of knowledge about the experiences of clinical nurses during COVID‐19. However, there is less evidence about the experiences of nurse managers during the pandemic. Methods Eight nurse managers, from acute care and outpatient settings, completed semistructured interviews about how their roles had changed during the pandemic, how they felt about these changes, and what had gone well or been difficult. Each participant was interviewed once, for 20–60 min. We used thematic analysis methods to analyse the interview transcripts. Findings Nurse managers had to coordinate care in a context of uncertainty and guidance that changed frequently. Participants found that their roles and responsibilities either expanded to include more duties, or they were asked to take on a completely new role, with no orientation or training. Nurse managers were expected to provide support to their staff and patients, but did not necessarily receive support themselves. Participants were expected to plan simultaneously for care during the pandemic and for a return to normal working conditions. These factors contributed to challenging and difficult participant experiences of managing during COVID‐19. Conclusion Nurse managers' experiences during COVID‐19 are influenced by changes to their roles and the support they received. Nurse managers continue to support high‐quality care despite working a difficult context. Implications for nursing management Where possible, nurse managers can be supported to extend their roles or receive additional education and support if they are required to take on new responsibilities. Nurse managers require support in order to be a resource for their staff.

BackgroundEngaging stakeholders from varied organizational levels is essential to successful healthcare quality improvement. However, engagement has been hard to achieve and to measure across diverse stakeholders. Further, current implementation science models provide little clarity about what engagement means, despite its importance.The aim of this study was to understand how stakeholders of healthcare improvement initiatives defined engagement.MethodsParticipants (n = 86) in this qualitative thematic study were purposively sampled for individual interviews. Participants included leaders, core members, frontline clinicians, support personnel, and other stakeholders of Strategic Clinical Networks in Alberta Health Services, a Canadian provincial health system with over 108,000 employees. We used an iterative thematic approach to analyze participants’ responses to the question, “How do you define engagement?”ResultsRegardless of their organizational role, participants defined engagement through three interrelated themes. First, engagement was active participation from willing and committed stakeholders, with levels that ranged from information sharing to full decision-making. Second, engagement centered on a shared decision-making process about meaningful change for everyone “around the table,” those who are most impacted. Third, engagement was two-way interactions that began early in the change process, where exchanges were respectful and all stakeholders felt heard and understood.ConclusionsThis study highlights the commonalities of how stakeholders in a large healthcare system defined engagement—a shared understanding and terminology—to guide and improve stakeholder engagement. Overall, engagement was an active and committed decision-making about a meaningful problem through respectful interactions and dialog where everyone’s voice is considered. Our results may be used in conjunction with current implementation models to provide clarity about what engagement means and how to engage various stakeholders.

No abstract