Qualitative Data Repository

This study assessed incivility during mortality and morbidity (M&M) conference. A psychologically safe environment at M&M conference enables generative discussions to improve care. Incivility and exclusion demonstrated by "shame and blame" undermine generative discussion. We used a convergent mixed-methods design to collect qualitative data through nonparticipant observations of M&M conference and quantitative data through standardized survey instruments of M&M participants. The M&M conference was attended by attending surgeons (all academic ranks), fellows, residents, medical students on surgery rotation, advanced practice providers, and administrators from the department of surgery. A standardized observation guide was developed, piloted and adapted based on expert nonparticipant feedback. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short-Form (PANAS) and the Uncivil Behavior in Clinical Nursing Education (UBCNE) survey instruments were distributed to the Department of Surgery clinical faculty and categorical general surgery residents in an academic medical center. We observed 11 M&M discussions of 30 cases, over 6 months with 4 different moderators. Case presentations (virtual format) included clinical scenario, decision-making, operative management, complications, and management of the complications. Discussion was free form, without a standard structure. The central theme was that limited discussion participation from attending surgeon of record, as well as absence of a systems-approach led to blame and then blame then set the stage for incivility. Among 147 eligible to participate in the survey, 54 (36.7%) responded. Assistant professors had a 2.60 higher Negative Affect score ( P =0.02), a 4.13 higher Exclusion Behavior score ( P =0.03), and a 7.6 higher UBCNE score ( P =0.04) compared with associate and full professors. Females had a 2.7 higher Negative Affect Score compared with males ( P =0.04). Free-form M&M discussions led to incivility. Structuring discussion to focus upon improving care may create inclusion and more generative discussions to improve care.

Background: Transparency is increasingly recognized as an important goal for research. But while tools and guidance for transparency and reproducibility abound for scholars working quantitatively, relatively few such tools exist for qualitative researchers. Methods: This paper describes the development and use of a transparency checklist for qualitative research. The transparency checklist provides qualitative researchers with a comprehensive list of documents and information to collect and archive during the course of a research project and suggestions for which of these can be shared to enhance the transparency of the project. Drawing on the rich tradition of checklists outside of academia, the transparency checklist is built to improve the quality of work and facilitate communication in research teams, rather than serve as a tool for external transparency assessments. Results: We describe the use of the checklist in qualitative research projects conducted at a nonprofit organization conducting policy-driven research on sexual and reproductive health. In practice, the checklist proves valuable not just for planning to make materials and data available, but also both for coordinating and organizing larger, team-based qualitative research projects and for maximizing the transparency of qualitative research for which data cannot be shared.Conclusion: Wider adoption of the checklist has the potential to improve qualitative research by supporting the sharing of data and materials, standardizing rigorous models of data collection and analysis, and by making supporting documents such as consent language and interview guides more broadly available, allowing for improved learning across projects.

Socio–environmental synthesis as a research approach contributes to broader sustainability policy and practice by reusing data from disparate disciplines in innovative ways. Synthesizing diverse data sources and types of evidence can help to better conceptualize, investigate and address increasingly complex socio–environmental problems. However, sharing qualitative data for re-use remains uncommon when compared to sharing quantitative data. We argue that qualitative data present untapped opportunities for sustainability science, and discuss practical pathways to facilitate and realize the benefits from sharing and reusing qualitative data. However, these opportunities and benefits are also hindered by practical, ethical and epistemological challenges. To address these challenges and accelerate qualitative data sharing, we outline enabling conditions and suggest actions for researchers, institutions, funders, data repository managers and publishers. Opportunities, challenges and recommended targeted actions to accelerate qualitative data sharing to address complex socio–environmental problems

Editorial, concluding that 'the legitimacy of NICE amongst the general public is essential to engender the trust of those financing and using the NHS and to avoid it being undermined or pre-empted by government, in response to public and media concerns. The caricature of NICE as a 'death panel' may appear farcical, yet the political leverage of hope in new drugs is highly potent and capable of undermining any agency which is perceived as threatening it. The power of this message and the multiple layers through which it is infused makes plain the need for it to be countered. NICE requires not only more consistent government backing but also a means by which it can highlight established services which are preserved by its decisions to reject some innovations. Given the increasing financial pressures faced by the NHS, the significance and utility of NICE in regulating cost-effectiveness is greater than ever. Hence, its ability to preserve its authority in the face of strong challenges is a salient issue. The ostensibly scientific basis of NICE's threshold-oriented recommendations has perhaps led NICE to downplay the significance of sociopolitical influences on its activities. NICE must recognise that robust decision-making is only part of the regulatory 'game'. Media and public profile are also vital to its effectiveness.