Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in over 2 million deaths globally. The experience in Australia presents an opportunity to study contrasting responses to the COVID-19 health system shock. We adapted the Hanefeld et al framework for health systems shocks to create the COVID-19 System Shock Framework (CSSF). This framework enabled us to assess innovations and changes created through COVID-19 at the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network (SCHN), the largest provider of children’s health services in the Southern hemisphere. Methods: We used ethnographic methods, guided by the CSSF, to map innovations and initiatives implemented across SCHN during the pandemic. An embedded field researcher shadowed members of the emergency operations centre (EOC) for nine months. We also reviewed clinic and policy documents pertinent to SCHN’s response to COVID-19 and conducted interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, including clinical directors, project managers, frontline clinicians, and other personnel involved in implementing innovations across SCHN. Results: The CSSF captured SCHN’s complex response to the pandemic. Responses included a COVID-19 assessment clinic, inpatient and infectious disease management services, redeploying and managing a workforce working from home, cohesive communication initiatives, and remote delivery of care, all enabled by a dedicated COVID-19 fund. The health system values that shaped SCHN’s response to the pandemic included principles of equity of healthcare delivery, holistic and integrated models of care, and supporting workforce wellbeing. SCHN’s resilience was enabled by innovation fostered through a non-hierarchical governance structure and responsiveness to emerging challenges balanced with a singular vision. Conclusion: Using the CSSF, we found that SCHN’s ability to innovate was key to ensuring its resilience during the pandemic.

Background: Depression is common during adolescence and is associated with adverse educational, employment, and health outcomes in later life. Digital programs are increasingly being implemented in schools to improve and protect adolescent mental health. Although digital depression prevention programs can be effective, there is limited knowledge about how contextual factors influence real-world delivery at scale in schools. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the contextual factors that influence the implementation of the Future Proofing Program (FPP) from the perspectives of school staff. The FPP is a 2-arm hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial evaluating whether depression can be prevented at scale in schools, using an evidence-based smartphone app delivered universally to year 8 students (13-14 years of age). Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 staff from 20 schools in New South Wales, Australia, who assisted with the implementation of the FPP. The interviews were guided by our theory-driven logic model. Reflexive thematic analysis, using both deductive and inductive coding, was used to analyze responses. Results: Staff perceived the FPP as a novel (“innovative approach”) and appropriate way to address an unmet need within schools (“right place at the right time”). Active leadership and counselor involvement were critical for planning and engaging; teamwork, communication, and staff capacity were critical for execution (“ways of working within schools”). Low student engagement and staffing availability were identified as barriers for future adoption and implementation by schools (“reflecting on past experiences”). Conclusions: Four superordinate themes pertaining to the program, implementation processes, and implementation barriers were identified from qualitative responses by school staff. On the basis of our findings, we proposed a select set of recommendations for future implementation of digital prevention programs delivered at scale in schools. These recommendations were designed to facilitate an organizational change and help staff to implement digital mental health programs within their schools. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042133

Introduction Continuity of child and family healthcare is vital for optimal child health and development for developmentally vulnerable children. Migrant and refugee communities are often at-risk of poor health outcomes, facing barriers to health service attendance including cultural, language, limited health literacy, discrimination and unmet psychosocial needs. ‘Integrated health-social care hubs’ are physical hubs where health and social services are co-located, with shared referral pathways and care navigation. Aim Our study will evaluate the impact, implementation and cost-benefit of the First 2000 Days Care Connect (FDCC) integrated hub model for pregnant migrant and refugee women and their infants. Materials and methods This study has three components. Component 1 is a non-randomised controlled trial to compare the FDCC model of care with usual care. This trial will allocate eligible women to intervention and control groups based on their proximity to the Hub sites. Outcome measures include: the proportion of children attending child and family health (CFH) nurse services and completing their CFH checks to 12 months of age; improved surveillance of growth and development in children up to 12 months, post partum; improved breastfeeding rates; reduced emergency department presentations; and improved maternal well-being. These will be measured using linked medical record data and surveys. Component 2 will involve a mixed-method implementation evaluation to clarify how and why FDCC was implemented within the sites to inform future roll-out. Component 3 is a within-trial economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Hubs relative to usual care and the implementation costs if Hubs were scaled and replicated. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee in July 2021 (Project ID: 020/ETH03295). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. Trial registration number ACTRN12621001088831.

Introduction: To redress the scholarly preoccupation with gaps, issues, and problems in palliative care, this article extends previous findings on what constitutes brilliant palliative care to ask what brilliant nursing practices are supported and promoted.Methods: This study involved the methodology of POSH‐VRE, which combines positive organisational scholarship in healthcare (POSH) with video‐reflexive ethnography (VRE). From August 2015 to May 2017, inclusive, nurses affiliated with a community health service who delivered palliative care, contributed to this study as co‐researchers (n = 4) or participants (n = 20). Patients who received palliative care (n = 30) and carers (n = 16) contributed as secondary participants, as they were part of observed instances of palliative care. With a particular focus on the practices and experiences that exceeded expectations and brought joy and delight, the study involved capturing video‐recordings of community‐based palliative care in situ; reflexively analysing the recordings with the nurses; as well as ethnography to witness, experience, and understand practices and experiences. Data were analysed, teleologically, to clarify what brilliant practices were supported and promoted.Results: Brilliant community‐based palliative care nursing largely involved maintaining normality in patients’ and carers’ lives. The nurses demonstrated this by masking the clinical aspects of their role, normalising these aspects, and appreciating alternative ‘normals’.Conclusion: Redressing the scholarly preoccupation with gaps, issues, and problems in palliative care, this article demonstrates how what is ordinary is extraordinary. Specifically, given the intrusiveness and abnormalising effects of technical clinical interventions, brilliant community‐based palliative care can be realised when nurses enact practices that serve to promote a patient or carer to normality.Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and carers contributed to this study as participants, while nurses contributed to this study as co‐researchers in the conduct of the study, the analysis and interpretation of the data, and the preparation of the article.

Introduction Implementation evaluations provide insight into how interventions are delivered across varying contexts and why interventions work in some contexts and not in others. This manuscript outlines a detailed protocol of an implementation evaluation embedded in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of a model of care, Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C), that integrates paediatric care in general practice. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the pragmatic methods that will be used to capture implementation evaluation process and outcome data within this trial. Methods and analysis Our implementation evaluation will use a mixed methods design, with data collected in the intervention arm of the SC4C trial guided by a logic model developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor and colleague’s taxonomy of implementation outcomes. Data collection will be via questionnaires and semistructured interviews with general practitioners, paediatricians, general practice administrative staff and children and families. Each of the 21 general practices recruited into the study will be described in terms of staffing, patient throughput and location, in addition to the nuanced inner and outer contexts, use of the intervention and its acceptability. We will quantify implementation effectiveness in each general practice clinic using the CFIR validated scoring system. Importantly, we have embedded data collection post intervention to enable assessment of the sustainable adoption of the intervention. An inductive approach to the analysis of qualitative data will identify additional emerging themes that may not be covered by the formal frameworks underpinning our analysis. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by the Royal Children’s Hospital Ethics Committee in August 2020 (HREC: 65955). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. Trial registration number Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12620001299998 on 1 December 2020.

The involvement of young people in the planning of research continues to be rare, particularly for young people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities. This paper describes our experience in establishing a Youth Research Advisory Group (YRAG) in South West Sydney (SWS), including barriers and successful strategies. One hundred and fifteen students between school Years 7 and 12 (ages 11–18) took part in at least one of five sessions between 2019 and 2021. In total, we carried out 26 YRAG sessions, with between five and 30 students in each. Sessions focused on mapping the health priorities of the participants and co-developing research project proposals related to their health priorities. Our work with students revealed that their main areas of concern were mental health and stress. This led to material changes in our research strategy, to include “Mental Health” as a new research stream and co-develop new mental health-related projects with the students. Important strategies that enabled our research included maintaining flexibility to work seamlessly with organisational and individual preferences, and ensuring our processes were directed by the schools and—most importantly—the students themselves. Strategies such as maintaining an informal context, responding rapidly to student preference, and regularly renegotiating access enabled us to engage with the students to deepen our understanding of their experiences.