Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of elective surgery in the UK. The majority of planned surgery was cancelled or postponed in March 2020 for the duration of the first wave of the pandemic. We investigated the experiences of staff responsible for delivering rapid changes to surgical services during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK, with the aim of developing lessons for future major systems change.
Methods Using a rapid qualitative study design, we conducted 25 interviews with frontline surgical staff during the first wave of the pandemic. We also carried out a policy review of the guidance developed for those delivering surgical services in pandemic conditions. We used framework analysis to organise and interpret findings.
Results Staff discussed positive and negative experiences of rapid service organisation. Clinician-led decision making, the flexibility of individual staff and teams, and the opportunity to innovate service design were all seen as positive contributors to success in service adaptation. The negative aspects of rapid change were inconsistent guidance from national government and medical bodies, top-down decisions about when to cancel and restart surgery, the challenges of delivering emergency surgical care safely and the complexity of prioritising surgical cases when services re-started.
Conclusion Success in the rapid reorganisation of elective surgical services can be attributed to the flexibility and adaptability of staff. However, there was an absence of involvement of staff in wider system-level pandemic decision-making and competing guidance from national bodies. Involving staff in decisions about the organisation and delivery of major systems change is essential for the sustainability of change processes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study did not receive external funding. Research costs were covered with existing funding provided by the Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), UCL. All researchers acted independently from the funding source and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was reviewed and approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) in the United Kingdom (IRAS: 282069) and the Research and Development (R&D) offices of the hospitals where the study took place.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵¶ Joint first authors
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or its supplementary materials.
