Dr Johanna Spiers

Suicide is a leading cause of death. NHS workers, especially female nurses, have heightened vulnerability. Being impacted by a colleague's suicide can lead to increased suicidality. Postvention refers to support following a suicide. We investigated current, available postvention for NHS workers following a colleague's suicide and the experiences of staff who deliver it ("supporters"). Twenty-two supporters were interviewed, and data were analyzed using classic grounded theory. The theory of negotiating postvention situations was developed. Supporters must negotiate enabling and disabling elements that form a "postvention situation" and impact behaviors and postvention efficacy. Postvention delivery is emotionally burdensome. Supporters need support, which they do not always receive. Postvention can lead to learning, which can better inform future postvention. The extent to which NHS workers can effectively support colleagues will depend on their postvention situation. As such, work must be done to enable supporters to offer effective postvention in the future.Suicide; postvention; healthcare workers; grounded theory

In this paper, we introduce a novel method for the synthesis of qualitative data and co-production in the development of evidence-based guidelines. The call for evidence-based practice in healthcare settings has been dominated by a focus on patient groups, overlooking the need for robust guidelines to inform the delivery of support or developmental interventions for staff members. We propose an eight-step method that brings together primary and secondary qualitative data with co-produced data. Data is synthesised at two of the eight stages. This method generates robust findings and recommendations which are well suited to informing written guidelines. We present our experience of implementing this method in the development of postvention guidelines for the support of National Health Service (NHS) staff following the death by suicide of a colleague. This worked example illustrates the application of the method to the generation of evidence-based, co-produced practice guidelines. We discuss the application of qualitative data and co-production in the development of fit for purpose guidelines, and the lack of transparent reporting of methods in existing guidelines. We recommend that guidelines should be underpinned by empirical evidence and developed in consultation with stakeholders and end-users, including those who will implement and those who will receive treatment or intervention. For transparency and to inform end-users, we conclude that written guidelines should always detail the methods employed in their production.

This paper includes the script from a research-informed, theater-based production titled PreScribed (A Life Written for Me), which depicts the life of a distressed General Practitioner (GP) who is on the verge of breaking down and burning out. The authors provide context for the collaboration between artist and researchers and report on the creative methodological process involved in the co-production of the script, where research findings were imaginatively transformed into live theater. The researchers provide their reflections on the process and value of artistic collaboration and use of theater to disseminate research findings about emotions to wider audiences. It is concluded that qualitative researchers and artists can collaborate to co-create resonant and powerful pieces of work which communicate the emotions and experiences of research participants in ways that traditional academic dissemination methods cannot. The authors hope that sharing their experiences and this script as well as their reflections on the benefits of this approach may encourage researchers and artists to engage in this type of methodological collaboration in the future.

Almost half of NHS doctors are junior doctors, while high proportions are women and/or Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals. Discrimination against this population is associated with poorer career-related outcomes and unequal representation. We aimed to qualitatively explore junior doctors’ experience of workplace racial and gender-based discrimination, and its impact on their psychological distress (PD). In this study, we carried out a secondary analysis of data from a UK-based parent study about junior doctors’ working cultures and conditions. Interview data was examined using thematic analysis. Transcripts (n = 14) documenting experiences of race and/or gender-based discrimination were sampled and analysed from 21 in-depth interviews conducted with UK junior doctors. Four themes were generated about the experiences and perpetrators of discrimination, the psychological impact of discrimination, and organisational interventions that tackle discrimination. Discrimination in various forms was reported, from racially charged threats to subtle microaggressions. Participants experienced profoundly elevated levels of PD, feeling fearful, undermined, and under-confident. Discrimination is associated with elevated levels of PD, whilst negatively impacting workforce sustainability and retention. This reduces the opportunity for more diversity in NHS medical leadership. We encourage NHS hospitals to review their policies about discrimination and develop in-person workshops that focus on recognising, challenging, and reporting workplace discrimination.

Background Evidence attests a link between junior doctors’ working conditions and psychological distress. Despite increasing concerns around suicidality among junior doctors, little is known about its relationship to their working conditions. Aims To (a) establish the prevalence of suicidal ideation among junior doctors in the National Health Service; (b) examine the relationships between perceived working conditions and suicidal ideation; and (c) explore whether psychological distress (e.g. symptoms of depression and anxiety) mediates these relationships. Method Junior doctors were recruited between March 2020 and January 2021, for a cross-sectional online survey. We used the Health and Safety Executive's Management Standards Tool; Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21; and Paykel Suicidality Scale to assess working conditions, psychological distress and suicidality, respectively. Results Of the 424 participants, 50.2% reported suicidal ideation, including 6.1% who had made an attempt on their own life. Participants who identified as LGBTQ+ (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.15–4.12) or reported depression symptoms (odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 1.07–1.14) were more likely to report suicidal ideation. No direct relationships were reported between working conditions (i.e. control, support, role clarity, strained relationships, demand and change) and suicidal ideation. However, depression symptoms mediated all six relationships. Conclusions This sample of junior doctors reported alarming levels of suicidal ideation. There may be an indirect relationship between working conditions and suicidal ideation via depressive symptoms. Clearer research exploring the experience of suicidality in junior doctors is needed, including those who identify as LGBTQ+. Systematic interventions addressing working environment are needed to support junior doctors’ mental health.

Huntington's disease (HD) is an inherited neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor problems, cognitive impairment, and mood disturbances. Given the emotional elements of both HD itself and the testing process for it, psychological interventions may be helpful for those families impacted by HD. A stand-alone genetic counseling narrative group has been offered by one regional genetics clinic in the north of England to support people's coping following predictive genetic testing for HD. Groups are held 4-5 times per year with patients attending a group on a single occasion. This study assessed participants' experiences of attending a group using the qualitative method interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Telephone interviews were conducted with 12 people who had a mutation-positive HD predictive test result and who had taken part in a genetic counseling narrative group session between November 2017 and February 2018. Participants were asked about their experiences of the group and any impact it had had on their lives. Four themes emerged: 'The power of the group, 'Active elements of the narrative exercise', 'Subsequent impact of the session', and 'Another voice'. Participants described the positive impact of being able to meet and empathize with others in a similar situation, the group's positive impact on their mood and future outlook, and its beneficial impact on disclosure. While most participants were positive about the session, the final theme presented the voices of two participants for whom the groups were poorly timed. Given the sessions' generally positive impact, we recommend other centers consider offering people impacted by HD similar sessions.

We present an original phenomenological study conducted with a local authority Early Help and Prevention social care team, in which we investigated the lived experience of parents and practitioners of young people who misuse drugs amid a practice agenda focused on harm reduction. Our findings reflect practitioners' lived experience of direct work with young people and parents, and parents' approach to their risk-taking children. Our data identifies key concerns reflecting wider social discourse surrounding young people, in particular; the juxtaposition of adolescents as both vulnerable children, and agentic risk-takers, in the context of children's rights, and the role of adults in young lives. Our findings indicate a complex position amid multifactorial needs, risk, and offending behaviour, and reveals tensions between professionally driven harm reduction approaches, versus parents' attempts to control and protect their children, and highlight the complex transition made may protective adults as agentic adolescents forge their life chances.

Background: Doctors, including junior doctors, are vulnerable to greater levels of distress and mental health difficulties than the public. This is exacerbated by their working conditions and cultures. While this vulnerability has been known for many years, little action has been taken to protect and support junior doctors working in the NHS. As such, we present a series of recommendations from the perspective of junior doctors and other relevant stakeholders, designed to improve junior doctors’ working conditions and, thus, their mental health. Methods: We interviewed 36 junior doctors, asking them for recommendations for improving their working conditions and culture. Additionally, we held an online stakeholder meeting with a variety of healthcare professionals (including junior doctors), undergraduate medical school leads, postgraduate speciality school leads and NHS policymakers where we asked what could be done to improve junior doctors’ working conditions. We combined interview data with notes from the stakeholder discussions to produce this set of recommendations. Results: Junior doctor participants and stakeholders made organisational and interpersonal recommendations. Organisational recommendations include the need for more environmental, staff and educational resources as well as changes to rotas. Interpersonal recommendations include changes to communication and recommendations for better support and teamwork. Conclusion: We suggest that NHS policymakers, employers and managers consider and hopefully implement the recommendations set out by the study participants and stakeholders as reported in this paper and that the gold standards of practice which are reported here (such as examples of positive learning environments and supportive supervision) are showcased so that others can learn from them.