Mental health clinicians' perspectives on care standards in the NHS V1

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    A Foucauldian discourse analysis of clinicians' language regarding standards of care in the current socio-political NHS context.

  • IRAS ID

    303995

  • Contact name

    Kristina Argustaite

  • Contact email

    ka354@canterbury.ac.uk

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 7 months, 29 days

  • Research summary

    In the NHS, government reforms in the sector management led to a culture of service evaluation based on 'efficiency' and 'meeting targets' (Cosgrove & Karter, 2018). Whilst it is recognised that targets have their value, the literature exploring issues within the NHS draws attention to target-driven priorities sometimes working against rather than in favour of optimal care (Francis, 2013, Pope, 2019).

    Further, whilst targets may dominate ways of talking about/within the NHS, language based on ethics and values also exists as clinicians strive to provide high-quality compassionate care. Research suggests that NHS clinicians often find their values contradicted by operational policy and experience ongoing conflicts between meeting targets and providing compassionate care, which can impact their work (Proctor & Hayes, 2017). However, there is a paucity of research exploring how clinicians manage these competing demands in the everyday running of the services. Therefore, in line with the NHS values that seek to value and empower service users and staff, there is a need to understand the clinicians' ways of talking about standards of care.

    The present study will address this by employing a research method of 'discourse analysis' that enables us to look at recurrent ways of talking that we do not always notice and reflect on how they might shape individual experiences. To achieve this, this study will examine naturalistic conversations regarding the standards of care that different mental health professionals employ. This will involve collecting and analysing recordings of different professional meetings within the NHS.

    This study will contribute to a growing understanding of how commonly used ways of talking may have an influence within the NHS. Becoming more aware of this can potentially empower NHS staff to make a more conscious decision about how and when these ways of talking are helpful and/or less helpful in meeting the NHS aims.

  • REC name

    London - Camden & Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    22/LO/0113

  • Date of REC Opinion

    20 Apr 2022

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion