The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners’ (GPs’) perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

The importance of employee voice-speaking up and out about concerns-is widely recognised as fundamental to patient safety and quality of care. However, failures of voice continue to occur, often with disastrous consequences. In this article, we argue that the enduring sociological concepts of the informal organisation and formal organisation offer analytical purchase in understanding the causes of such problems and how they can be addressed. We report a qualitative study involving 165 interviews across three healthcare organisations in two high-income countries. Our analysis emphasises the interdependence of the formal and informal organisation. The formal organisation describes codified and formalised elements of structures, procedures and processes for the exercise of voice, but participants often found it frustrating, ambiguous, and poorly designed. The informal organisation-the informal practices, social connections, and methods for making decisions that are key to coordinating organisational activity-could facilitate voice through its capacity to help people to understand complex processes, make sense of their concerns, and frame them in ways likely to prompt an appropriate organisational response. Sometimes the informal organisation compensated for gaps, ambiguities and inconsistencies in formal policies and systems. At the same time, the informal organisation had a dark side, potentially subduing voice by creating informal hierarchies, prioritising social cohesion, and providing opportunities for retaliation. The formal and the informal organisation are not exclusive or independent: they interact with and mutually reinforce each other. Our findings have implications for efforts to improve culture and processes in relation to voice in healthcare organisations, pointing to the need to address deficits in the formal organisation, and to the potential of building on strengths in the informal organisation that are crucial in supporting voice.

Background: New opportunities to record, collate, and analyze routine patient data have prompted optimism about the potential of learning health systems. However, real-life examples of such systems remain rare and few have been exposed to study. We aimed to examine the views of design stakeholders on designing and implementing a US-based registry-enabled care and learning system for cystic fibrosis (RCLS-CF). Methods: We conducted a two-phase qualitative study with stakeholders involved in designing, implementing, and using the RCLS-CF. First, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 program personnels involved in design and delivery of the program. We then undertook 11 follow-up interviews. Analysis of interviews was based on the constant comparative method, supported by NVivo software. Results: The organizing principle for the RCLS-CF was a shift to more partnership-based relationships between patients and clinicians, founded in values of co-production, and facilitated by technology-enabled data sharing. Participants proposed that, for the system to be successful, the data it collects must be both clinically useful and meaningful to patients and clinicians. They suggested that the prerequisites included a technological infrastructure capable of supporting data entry and joint decision-making in an accessible way, and a set of social conditions, including willingness from patients and clinicians alike to work together in new ways that build on the expertise of both parties. Follow-up interviews highlighted some of the obstacles, including technical challenges and practical constraints on refiguring relationships between clinicians and patients. Conclusions: The values and vision underlying the RCLS-CF were shared and clearly and consistently articulated by design stakeholders. The challenges to realization were often not at the level of principle, but were both practical and social in character. Lessons from this study may be useful to other systems looking to harness the power of “big data” registries, including patient-reported data, for care, research, and quality improvement.

Background: Large-scale data collection is an increasingly prominent and influential feature of efforts to improve healthcare delivery, yet securing the involvement of clinical centres and ensuring data comprehensiveness often proves problematic. We explore how improvements in both data submission and completion rates were achieved during a crucial period of the evolution of two large-scale data exercises. Methods: As part of an evaluation of a quality improvement programme, we conducted an ethnographic study involving 90 interviews and 47 days of non-participant observation of two UK national clinical audits in a period before submission of data on adherence to clinical standards became mandatory. Results: Critical to the improvements in submission and completion rates in the two exercises were the efforts of clinical leaders to refigure “data work” as a professionalization strategy. Using a series of strategic manoeuvres, leaders constructed a cultural account that tied the fortunes of the healthcare professions to the submission of high-quality data, proposing that it would demonstrate responsibility, transparency, and alignment with the public interest. In so doing, clinical leadership deployed tactics that might have been seen as unwarranted managerial aggression had they been imposed by parties external to the profession. Many residual challenges were linked not to principled objection by clinicians, but to mundane problems and frustrations in obtaining, recording, and submitting data. The cultural framing of data work as a professional duty was important to resolving its status as an abject form of labour. Conclusions: Improving data quality in large-scale exercises is possible, but requires cooperation with clinical centres. Enabling professional leadership of data work may offer some significant advantages, but attention is also needed to mundane and highly consequential obstacles to participation in data collection.

Despite a large literature on surgical site infection (SSI), the determinants of prevention behaviours in surgery remain poorly studied. Understanding key social and contextual components of surgical staff behaviour may help to design and implement infection control (IC) improvement interventions in surgery. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with surgeons (n = 8), nurses (n = 5) theatre personnel (n = 3), and other healthcare professionals involved in surgery (n = 4) in a 1500-bed acute care London hospital group. Participants were approached through established mailing lists and snowball sampling. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analysed thematically using a constant comparative approach. IC behaviour of surgical staff was governed by factors at individual, team, and wider hospital level. IC practices were linked to the perceived risk of harm caused by an SSI more than the development of an SSI alone. Many operating room participants saw SSI prevention as a team responsibility. The sense of ownership over SSI occurence was closely tied to how preventable staff perceived infections to be, with differences observed between clean and contaminated surgery. However, senior surgeons claimed personal accountability for rates despite feeling SSIs are often not preventable. Hierarchy impacted on behaviour in different ways depending on whether it was within or between professional categories. One particular knowledge gap highlighted was the lack of awareness regarding criteria for SSI diagnosis. To influence IC behaviours in surgery, interventions need to consider the social team structure and shared ownership of the clinical outcome in order to increase the awareness in specialties where SSIs are not seen as serious complications.

The use of face masks and coverings has been a central component of efforts to mitigate the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic and has been legally mandated in some countries. Most academic studies to date, however, have focussed primarily on its effectiveness in reducing SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission, largely neglecting the social dimensions of mask mandates. In this narrative interview‐based study, we consider experiences of face masks, with a particular focus on groups considered to be at a potential disadvantage from compulsory masking. Drawing on 40 telephone, video‐call and e‐mail interviews, we highlight the impact of inconsistent communication and the notion of mask wearing as an act of altruism on participants’ experiences. In particular, we show how intolerance towards individuals who did not wear masks could result in stigma and exclusion, regardless of the legitimacy of their reasons. We suggest that more is needed to mitigate the ‘dark side’ of discourses of collective effort and altruism at a time of societal stress and fracture, and to account for the needs and interests of groups for whom compulsory masking may result in further marginalisation.