Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
The Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity (SANDS), London, UK.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Aug;12(22):1-159. doi: 10.3310/YTDF8015.
There is a policy drive in NHS maternity services to improve open disclosure with harmed families and limited information on how better practice can be achieved.
To identify critical factors for improving open disclosure from the perspectives of families, doctors, midwives and services and to produce actionable evidence for service improvement.
A three-phased, qualitative study using realist methodology. Phase 1: two literature reviews: scoping review of post-2013 NHS policy and realist synthesis of initial programme theories for improvement; an interview study with national stakeholders in NHS maternity safety and families. Phase 2: in-depth ethnographic case studies within three NHS maternity services in England. Phase 3: interpretive forums with study participants. A patient and public involvement strategy underpinned all study phases.
National recruitment (study phases 1 and 3); three English maternity services (study phase 2).
We completed = 142 interviews, including 27 with families; 93 hours of ethnographic observations, including 52 service and family meetings over 9 months; and interpretive forums with approximately 69 people, including 11 families.
The policy review identified a shift from viewing injured families as passive recipients to active contributors of post-incident learning, but a lack of actionable guidance for improving family involvement. The realist synthesis found weak evidence of the effectiveness of open disclosure interventions in the international maternity literature, but some improvements with organisation-wide interventions. Recent evidence was predominantly from the United Kingdom. The research identified and explored five key mechanisms for open disclosure: meaningful acknowledgement of harm; involvement of those affected in reviews/investigations; support for families' own sense-making; psychological safely of skilled clinicians (doctors and midwives); and knowing that improvements to care have happened. The need for each family to make sense of the incident in their own terms is noted. The selective initiatives of some clinicians to be more open with some families is identified. The challenges of an adversarial medicolegal landscape and limited support for meeting incentivised targets is evidenced.
Research was conducted after the pandemic, with exceptional pressure on services. Case-study ethnography was of three higher performing services: generalisation from case-study findings is limited. No observations of Health Safety Investigation Branch investigations were possible without researcher access. Family recruitment did not reflect population diversity with limited representation of non-white families, families with disabilities and other socially marginalised groups and disadvantaged groups.
We identify the need for service-wide systems to ensure that injured families are positioned at the centre of post-incident events, ensure appropriate training and post-incident care of clinicians, and foster ongoing engagement with families beyond the individual efforts made by some clinicians for some families. The need for legislative revisions to promote openness with families across NHS organisations, and wider changes in organisational family engagement practices, is indicated. Examination of how far the study's findings apply to different English maternity services, and a wider rethinking of how family diversity can be encouraged in maternity services research.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020164061. The study has been assessed following RAMESES realist guidelines.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR award ref: 17/99/85) and is published in full in ; Vol. 12, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
英国国民保健制度(NHS)的产妇服务部门正在推动一项政策,以改善与受伤害家庭的公开披露,并提供有关如何实现更好实践的有限信息。
从家庭、医生、助产士和服务的角度确定改善公开披露的关键因素,并为服务改进提供可操作的证据。
使用真实主义方法的三阶段定性研究。第 1 阶段:两项文献综述:对 2013 年后 NHS 政策的范围综述和初始改进方案理论的真实主义综合;对 NHS 产妇安全和家庭利益相关者的全国性利益相关者进行访谈研究。第 2 阶段:在英格兰的三个 NHS 产科服务中进行深入的民族志案例研究。第 3 阶段:与研究参与者进行解释性论坛。患者和公众参与策略贯穿于所有研究阶段。
全国范围的招募(研究阶段 1 和 3);三个英国产科服务(研究阶段 2)。
我们完成了 142 次访谈,包括 27 次与家庭的访谈;93 小时的民族志观察,包括 9 个月内进行的 52 次服务和家庭会议;以及大约 69 人的解释性论坛,包括 11 个家庭。
政策审查发现,从将受伤家庭视为被动接受者转变为事件后学习的积极参与者,但缺乏改善家庭参与的可操作指导。真实主义综合发现,国际产妇文献中公开披露干预措施的有效性证据较弱,但在全组织干预措施方面有所改善。最近的证据主要来自英国。研究确定并探讨了公开披露的五个关键机制:对伤害的有意义的承认;让受影响的人参与审查/调查;支持家庭自己的理解;有技能的临床医生(医生和助产士)的心理安全;以及知道护理已经得到改善。注意到每个家庭都需要根据自己的情况理解事件。确定了一些临床医生更愿意与一些家庭公开沟通的选择性举措。证据表明,对抗性的医疗法律环境和对激励目标的有限支持带来了挑战。
研究是在大流行后进行的,服务面临巨大压力。案例研究民族志是在三个表现较好的服务中进行的:从案例研究结果推断的普遍性有限。没有研究人员的访问,就不可能观察到健康安全调查局的调查。家庭招募没有反映人口多样性,代表性有限,包括非白人群体、残疾家庭和其他社会边缘化群体以及弱势群体。
我们确定需要全服务系统来确保受伤家庭处于事件后事件的中心,确保临床医生接受适当的培训和事件后护理,并促进与家庭的持续参与,超越一些临床医生为一些家庭所做的个别努力。需要对 NHS 组织内的家庭开放进行立法修订,并更广泛地改变组织内的家庭参与实践。
本研究在 PROSPERO CRD42020164061 中注册。该研究按照 RAMESES 真实主义指南进行了评估。
这项资助由英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)健康和社会保健交付研究计划(NIHR 奖励参考:17/99/85)资助,并在 ; 第 12 卷,第 22 期。请访问 NIHR 资助和奖励网站,以获取更多奖励信息。