Implementing psychological support for health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative exploration of staff well-being hubs ('Resilience Hubs') using normalisation process theory.

Evaluate the implementation of Hubs providing access to psychological support for health and social care keyworkers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative interviews informed by normalisation process theory to understand how the Hub model became embedded into normal practice, and factors that disrupted normalisation of this approach. Three Resilience Hubs in the North of England. Hub staff, keyworkers who accessed Hub support (Hub clients), keyworkers who had not accessed a Hub, and wider stakeholders involved in the provision of staff support within the health and care system (N=63). Hubs were generally seen as an effective way of supporting keyworkers, and Hub clients typically described very positive experiences. Flexibility and adaptability to local needs were strongly valued. Keyworkers accessed support when they understood the offer, valuing a confidential service that was separate from their organisation. Confusion about how Hubs differed from other support prevented some from enrolling. Beliefs about job roles, unsupportive managers, negative workplace cultures and systemic issues prevented keyworkers from valuing mental health support. Lack of support from managers discouraged keyworker engagement with Hubs. Black, Asian and minority ethnic keyworkers impacted by racism felt that the Hubs did not always meet their needs. Hubs were seen as a valuable, responsive and distinct part of the health and care system. Findings highlight the importance of improving promotion and accessibility of Hubs, and continuation of confidential Hub support. Policy implications for the wider health and care sector include the central importance of genuine promotion of and value placed on mental health support by health and social care management, and the creation of psychologically safe work environments. Diversity and cultural competency training is needed to better reach under-represented communities. Findings are consistent with the international literature, therefore, likely to have applicability outside of the current context.

Allsopp K ，Varese F ，French P ，White H ，Chung P ，Hassan AA ，Wright SA ，Young E ，Barrett A ，Bhutani G ，McGuirk K ，Huntley F ，Sarsam M ，Ten Cate H ，Watson R ，Willbourn J ，Hind D ... -  《BMJ Open》

The Resilience Hub approach for addressing mental health of health and social care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Varese F ，Allsopp K ，Carter LA ，Shields G ，Hind D ，Davies L ，Barrett A ，Bhutani G ，McGuirk K ，Huntley F ，Jordan J ，Rowlandson A ，Sarsam M ，Ten Cate H ，Walker H ，Watson R ，Wilkinson J ，Willbourn J ，French P ... -  《-》

Healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis.

Critical care telemedicine (CCT) has long been advocated for enabling access to scarce critical care expertise in geographically-distant areas. Additional advantages of CCT include the potential for reduced variability in treatment and care through clinical decision support enabled by the analysis of large data sets and the use of predictive tools. Evidence points to health systems investing in telemedicine appearing better prepared to respond to sudden increases in demand, such as during pandemics. However, challenges with how new technologies such as CCT are implemented still remain, and must be carefully considered. This synthesis links to and complements another Cochrane Review assessing the effects of interactive telemedicine in healthcare, by examining the implementation of telemedicine specifically in critical care. Our aim was to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of CCT, and to identify factors that are more likely to ensure successful implementation of CCT for subsequent consideration and assessment in telemedicine effectiveness reviews. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for eligible studies from inception to 14 October 2019; alongside 'grey' and other literature searches. There were no language, date or geographic restrictions. We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. Studies included views from healthcare stakeholders including bedside and CCT hub critical care personnel, as well as administrative, technical, information technology, and managerial staff, and family members. We extracted data using a predetermined extraction sheet. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist to assess the methodological rigour of individual studies. We followed the Best-fit framework approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform our data synthesis.  We classified additional themes not captured by CFIR under a separate theme. We used the GRADE CERQual approach to assess confidence in the findings. We found 13 relevant studies. Twelve were from the USA and one was from Canada. Where we judged the North American focus of the studies to be a concern for a finding's relevance, we have reflected this in our assessment of confidence in the finding. The studies explored the views and experiences of bedside and hub critical care personnel; administrative, technical, information technology, and managerial staff; and family members. The intensive care units (ICUs) were from tertiary hospitals in urban and rural areas. We identified several factors that could influence the implementation of CCT. We had high confidence in the following findings: Hospital staff and family members described several advantages of CCT. Bedside and hub staff strongly believed that the main advantage of CCT was having access to experts when bedside physicians were not available. Families also valued having access to critical care experts. In addition, hospital staff described how CCT could support clinical decision-making and mentoring of junior staff.  Hospital staff greatly valued the nature and quality of social networks between the bedside and CCT hub teams. Key issues for them were trust, acceptance, teamness, familiarity and effective communication between the two teams. Interactions between some bedside and CCT hub staff were featured with tension, frustration and conflict. Staff on both sides commonly described disrespect of their expertise, resistance and animosity. Hospital staff thought it was important to promote and offer training in the use of CCT before its implementation. This included rehearsing every step in the process, offering staff opportunities to ask questions and disseminating learning resources. Some also complained that experienced staff were taken away from bedside care and re-allocated to the CCT hub team. Hospital staff's attitudes towards, knowledge about and value placed on CCT influenced acceptance of CCT. Staff were positive towards CCT because of its several advantages. But some were concerned that the CCT hub staff were not able to understand the patient's situation through the camera. Some were also concerned about confidentiality of patient data. We also identified other factors that could influence the implementation of CCT, although our confidence in these findings is moderate or low. These factors included the extent to which telemedicine software was adaptable to local needs, and hub staff were aware of local norms; concerns about additional administrative work and cost; patients' and families' desire to stay close to their local community; the type of hospital setting; the extent to which there was support from senior leadership; staff access to information about policies and procedures; individuals' stage of change; staff motivation, competence and values; clear strategies for staff engagement; feedback about progress; and the impact of CCT on staffing levels. Our review identified several factors that could influence the acceptance and use of telemedicine in critical care. These include the value that hospital staff and family members place on having access to critical care experts, staff access to sufficient training, and the extent to which healthcare providers at the bedside and the critical care experts supporting them from a distance acknowledge and respect each other's expertise. Further research, especially in contexts other than North America, with different cultures, norms and practices will strengthen the evidence base for the implementation of CCT internationally and our confidence in these findings. Implementation of CCT appears to be growing in importance in the context of global pandemic management, especially in countries with wide geographical dispersion and limited access to critical care expertise. For successful implementation, policymakers and other stakeholders should consider pre-empting and addressing factors that may affect implementation, including strengthening teamness between bedside and hub teams; engaging and supporting frontline staff; training ICU clinicians on the use of CCT prior to its implementation; and ensuring staff have access to information and knowledge about when, why and how to use CCT for maximum benefit.

Xyrichis A ，Iliopoulou K ，Mackintosh NJ ，Bench S ，Terblanche M ，Philippou J ，Sandall J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

'Stressed, uncomfortable, vulnerable, neglected': a qualitative study of the psychological and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK frontline keyworkers.

Non-healthcare keyworkers face distinct occupational vulnerabilities that have received little consideration within broader debates about 'essential' work and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the impact of the pandemic on the working lives and mental health and well-being of non-healthcare keyworkers in the UK. In-depth, qualitative interviews, analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis. Telephone or video call interviews, conducted in the UK between September 2020 and January 2021. 23 participants aged 26-61 (mean age=47.2) years employed in a range of non-healthcare keyworker occupations, including transport, retail, education, postal services, the police and fire services, waste collection, finance and religious services. Keyworkers experienced adverse psychological effects during the COVID-19 pandemic, including fears of COVID-19 exposure, contagion and subsequent transmission to others, especially their families. These concerns were often experienced in the context of multiple exposure risks, including insufficient personal protective equipment and a lack of workplace mitigation practices. Keyworkers also described multiple work-related challenges, including increased workload, a lack of public and organisational recognition and feelings of disempowerment. In efforts to reduce psychosocial concerns among non-healthcare keyworkers, there is a need for appropriate support during the COVID-19 pandemic and in preparation for other infections (eg, seasonal influenza) in the future. This includes the provision of psychological and workplace measures attending to the intersections of personal vulnerability and work conditions that cause unique risks and challenges among those in frontline keyworker occupations.

May T ，Aughterson H ，Fancourt D ，Burton A ... -  《BMJ Open》

A service mapping exercise of four health and social care staff mental health and wellbeing services, Resilience Hubs, to describe health service provision and interventions.

NHS England funded 40 Mental Health and Wellbeing Hubs to support health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to document variations in how national guidance was adapted to the local contexts of four Hubs in the North of England. We used a modified version of Price's (2019) service mapping methodology. Service level data were used to inform the analysis. A mapping template was adapted from a range of tools, including the European Service Mapping Schedule, and reviewed by Hub leads. Key data included service model; staffing; and interventions. Data were collected between March 2021 - March 2022 by site research assistants. Findings were accuracy-checked by Hub leads, and a logic model developed to theorise how the Hubs may effect change. Hub goals and service models closely reflected guidance; offering: proactive outreach; team-based support; clinical assessment; onward referral, and rapid access to mental health support (in-house and external). Implementation reflected a service context of a client group with high mental health need, and high waiting times at external mental health services. Hubs were predominantly staffed by experienced clinicians, to manage these mental health presentations and organisational working. Formulation-based psychological assessment and the provision of direct therapy were not core functions of the NHS England model, however all Hubs incorporated these adaptations into their service models in response to local contexts, such as extensive waiting lists within external services, and/or client presentations falling between gaps in existing service provision. Finally, a standalone clinical records system was seen as important to reassure Hub users of confidentiality. Other more nuanced variation depended on localised contexts. This study provides a map for setting up services, emphasising early understandings of how new services will integrate within existing systems. Local and regional contexts led to variation in service configuration. Whilst additional Hub functions are supported by available literature, further research is needed to determine whether these functions should comprise essential components of staff wellbeing services moving forward. Future research should also determine the comparative effectiveness of service components, and the limits of permissible variation. researchregistry6303.

Allsopp K ，Varese F ，French P ，Young E ，White H ，Chung P ，Davey J ，Hassan AA ，Wright SA ，Barrett A ，Bhutani G ，McGuirk K ，Shields G ，Huntley F ，Jordan J ，Rowlandson A ，Sarsam M ，Ten Cate H ，Walker H ，Watson R ，Willbourn J ，Hind D ... -  《BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH》