23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

          Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power

            Sample sizes must be ascertained in qualitative studies like in quantitative studies but not by the same means. The prevailing concept for sample size in qualitative studies is "saturation." Saturation is closely tied to a specific methodology, and the term is inconsistently applied. We propose the concept "information power" to guide adequate sample size for qualitative studies. Information power indicates that the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed. We suggest that the size of a sample with sufficient information power depends on (a) the aim of the study, (b) sample specificity, (c) use of established theory, (d) quality of dialogue, and (e) analysis strategy. We present a model where these elements of information and their relevant dimensions are related to information power. Application of this model in the planning and during data collection of a qualitative study is discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research.

              Purposeful sampling is widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases related to the phenomenon of interest. Although there are several different purposeful sampling strategies, criterion sampling appears to be used most commonly in implementation research. However, combining sampling strategies may be more appropriate to the aims of implementation research and more consistent with recent developments in quantitative methods. This paper reviews the principles and practice of purposeful sampling in implementation research, summarizes types and categories of purposeful sampling strategies and provides a set of recommendations for use of single strategy or multistage strategy designs, particularly for state implementation research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pbj21@cam.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                12 May 2021
                12 May 2021
                2021
                : 21
                : 250
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5335.0, ISNI 0000000121885934, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, THIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), , University of Cambridge, ; Cambridge, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.9918.9, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8411, Department of Health Sciences, , University of Leicester, ; Leicester, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.8241.f, ISNI 0000 0004 0397 2876, Population Health and Genomics, , University of Dundee, ; Dundee, UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.4305.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, Centre for Biomedicine Self and Society, Usher Institute, , University of Edinburgh, ; Edinburgh, UK
                [5 ]GRID grid.490917.2, McPin Foundation, ; London, SE1 4YR UK
                [6 ]GRID grid.5335.0, ISNI 0000000121885934, Department of Psychiatry, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, , University of Cambridge, ; Cambridge, CB2 0SZ UK
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4981-1210
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5673-751X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7886-3223
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9083-580X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2260-8020
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5179-729X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3007-8805
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1979-7577
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5915-0041
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0387-880X
                Article
                3261
                10.1186/s12888-021-03261-8
                8113793
                33980215
                780874f8-c420-450a-9175-314b47646182
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 5 March 2021
                : 30 April 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                mental health services,staff,healthcare workers,covid-19,qualitative

                Comments

                Comment on this article