Stakeholder perspectives of piloting pre-hospital COVID-19 lateral flow testing and direct admissions pathway: exploring why well-received ideas have low uptake.

Fiona C Sampson, Fiona Bell, Joanne E Coster, Elisha Miller, Nicholas Easom
{"title":"Stakeholder perspectives of piloting pre-hospital COVID-19 lateral flow testing and direct admissions pathway: exploring why well-received ideas have low uptake.","authors":"Fiona C Sampson, Fiona Bell, Joanne E Coster, Elisha Miller, Nicholas Easom","doi":"10.29045/14784726.2022.12.7.3.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In January 2021, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Hull University Teaching Hospitals implemented a pilot COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) and direct admissions pathway to assess the feasibility of using pre-hospital LFTs to bypass the emergency department. Due to lower than anticipated uptake of the pilot among paramedics, we undertook a process evaluation to assess reasons for low uptake and perceived potential benefits and risks associated with the pilot.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 12 paramedics and hospital staff. We aimed to interview paramedics who had taken part in the pilot, those who had received the project information but not taken part and ward staff receiving patients from the pilot. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analysed data using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participation in the pilot appeared to be positively influenced by high personal capacity for undertaking research (being 'research-keen') and negatively influenced by 'COVID-19 exhaustion', electronic information overload and lack of time for training. Barriers to use of the pathway related to 'poor timing' of the pilot, restrictive patient eligibility and inclusion criteria. The rapid rollout meant that paramedics had limited knowledge or awareness of the pilot, and pilot participants reported poor understanding of the pilot criteria or the rationale for the criteria. Participants who were involved in the pilot were overwhelmingly positive about the intervention, which they perceived as having limited risks and high potential benefits to the health service, patients and themselves, and supported future roll-out.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ambulance clinician involvement in rapid research pilots may be improved by using multiple recruitment methods (electronic and other), providing protected time for training and increased direct support for paramedics with lower personal capacity for research. Improved communication (including face-to-face approaches) may help understanding of eligibility criteria and increase appropriate recruitment.</p>","PeriodicalId":72470,"journal":{"name":"British paramedic journal","volume":"7 3","pages":"15-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9730192/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British paramedic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29045/14784726.2022.12.7.3.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In January 2021, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Hull University Teaching Hospitals implemented a pilot COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) and direct admissions pathway to assess the feasibility of using pre-hospital LFTs to bypass the emergency department. Due to lower than anticipated uptake of the pilot among paramedics, we undertook a process evaluation to assess reasons for low uptake and perceived potential benefits and risks associated with the pilot.

Methods: We undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 12 paramedics and hospital staff. We aimed to interview paramedics who had taken part in the pilot, those who had received the project information but not taken part and ward staff receiving patients from the pilot. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analysed data using thematic analysis.

Results: Participation in the pilot appeared to be positively influenced by high personal capacity for undertaking research (being 'research-keen') and negatively influenced by 'COVID-19 exhaustion', electronic information overload and lack of time for training. Barriers to use of the pathway related to 'poor timing' of the pilot, restrictive patient eligibility and inclusion criteria. The rapid rollout meant that paramedics had limited knowledge or awareness of the pilot, and pilot participants reported poor understanding of the pilot criteria or the rationale for the criteria. Participants who were involved in the pilot were overwhelmingly positive about the intervention, which they perceived as having limited risks and high potential benefits to the health service, patients and themselves, and supported future roll-out.

Conclusions: Ambulance clinician involvement in rapid research pilots may be improved by using multiple recruitment methods (electronic and other), providing protected time for training and increased direct support for paramedics with lower personal capacity for research. Improved communication (including face-to-face approaches) may help understanding of eligibility criteria and increase appropriate recruitment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
院前COVID-19横向流量测试和直接入院途径试点的利益相关者观点:探讨为什么广受欢迎的想法使用率低
简介:2021年1月,约克郡救护车服务中心和赫尔大学教学医院实施了COVID-19横向流动测试(LFT)和直接入院途径试点,以评估使用院前LFT绕过急诊科的可行性。由于护理人员对试点的接受程度低于预期,我们进行了过程评估,以评估低接受程度的原因以及与试点相关的潜在利益和风险。方法:对12名护理人员和医院工作人员进行半结构化电话访谈。我们的目标是采访参加了试点的护理人员,那些收到了项目信息但没有参加的人,以及接收试点患者的病房工作人员。我们逐字记录采访内容,并使用专题分析分析数据。结果:参与试点似乎受到高个人研究能力(“热衷于研究”)的积极影响,受到“COVID-19疲劳”、电子信息过载和缺乏培训时间的负面影响。使用该途径的障碍与试点“时机不佳”、限制性患者资格和纳入标准有关。快速推出意味着护理人员对试点的知识或认识有限,试点参与者报告对试点标准或标准的基本原理理解不足。参与试点的参与者对干预措施持压倒性的积极态度,他们认为干预措施的风险有限,对卫生服务、患者和他们自己都有很大的潜在好处,并支持未来的推广。结论:救护车临床医生参与快速研究试点可以通过多种招聘方法(电子和其他),为培训提供保护时间,并增加对个人研究能力较低的护理人员的直接支持。改善沟通(包括面对面的方式)可能有助于了解资格标准并增加适当的招聘。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A national perspective of ambulance clinicians' perceptions, experiences and decision-making processes when assessing older adults with a head injury: a mixed-methods study. A qualitative exploration of the views of paramedics regarding the use of dark humour. Chemsex: core knowledge for emergency medical service responders. Comparing telesimulation-based learning and e-learning as remote education delivery methods in pre-hospital practice. 'Endless variation on a theme': a document analysis of international and UK major trauma triage tools.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1