Rapid qualitative analysis in a mixed-methods evaluation of an infection prevention intervention in a UK hospital setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion of the CLEAN study methodology

• Published in: Frontiers in sociology Vol. 7; p. 958250
• Main Authors: Higham, Ruchi, Pini, Simon, Quyn, Aaron, Kowal, Mikolaj, Helliwell, Jack, Saman, Razan, Lewthwaite, Penny, Young, Nicola, Rousseau, Nikki
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A 25.10.2022
• Subjects: infection prevention and control; rapid analysis; rapid appraisal; rapid evaluation; rapid qualitative research; rapid research; Sociology
• ISSN: 2297-7775; 2297-7775
• DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.958250

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need for high-quality rapid research. One clinical challenge was how to minimise the risk of transmission in the hospital setting. The CLEAN study conducted a rapid evaluation of the potential utility of a spray-based disinfectant in a hospital setting. The study was undertaken between December 2020 and March 2021 and involved the implementation of the spray in 10 different clinical areas in one UK teaching hospital. A mixed-methods approach was adopted (including observations, surveys, and qualitative interviews) informed by the theories for understanding the implementation of new healthcare technologies. The evaluation found that while the spray had a number of perceived benefits when added to existing disinfection processes, other factors limited its potential utility. These findings informed a number of recommendations for future adoption within hospital settings. This paper describes and reflects on the rapid methodology that allowed us to undertake the study and deliver results in a short space of time. We experienced a number of pressures during set-up and fieldwork due to the challenging conditions caused by the pandemic, and the methodological approach had to evolve throughout the study because of the changing clinical context. The involvement of clinicians from the research setting as full members of the research team was key to the rapid delivery of the research. They provided an essential link to the implementation environment, and their experiential knowledge of the setting added an important perspective to the analysis. Balancing their involvement with their clinical roles was challenging, however, as was coordinating a large and diverse team of interviewers in such a short space of time. Overall, the study highlighted the value of rapid research to inform urgent healthcare decisions in a pandemic. Although our experience suggests that conducting such research requires some practical and methodological trade-offs, we found that there were also numerous benefits of using rapid methods and identified various opportunities to ensure their robustness.