Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Addressing a gap: a qualitative analysis of Scotland’s Drowning and Incident Review process
  1. Carlene McAvoy1,2,
  2. Jagnoor Jagnoor3,
  3. Connie Hoe4,5
  1. 1Leisure Safety, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2Honorary Fellow for the Injury program, The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Injury Prevention, The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  5. 5Heidelberg Institute for Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Carlene McAvoy, Leisure Safety, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Edinburgh, UK; cmcavoy{at}rospa.com

Abstract

Objectives Drowning is a leading cause of fatalities worldwide and Scotland carries a disproportionate number of drownings compared with its UK neighbours. Drowning data captured in Scotland are often incomplete and the Drowning and Incident Review (DIR) is a new process designed to help improve the capture of data and help inform future preventative measures. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives and views of key stakeholders on the facilitators and barriers of implementing the DIR as well as areas for its future sustainability.

Methods A qualitative approach was used with in-depth interviews using key participants. Participants were identified using purposive sampling, through use of a stakeholder analysis. Participants watched a hypothetical DIR and then participated in a semistructured interview. Questions focused on DIR facilitators, barriers and areas for future sustainability. Qualitative data were then analysed using thematic analysis.

Results A total of 14 participants took part in the study. Results found: three facilitator themes (addresses a gap, design of DIR, safe space), four barrier themes (representation, resource, legal concerns, control concerns) and four areas for future sustainability (the voluntary nature, framework agreement, political prioritisation and the human element). These themes were then discussed within this paper in relation to findings from research on similar review processes.

Conclusion The research was the first of its kind and the findings are therefore extremely important to provide a first exploration and insight into facilitators and barriers of the DIR as well as areas for its future sustainability.

  • Drowning
  • Qualitative research
  • Policy
  • Mortality

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article. Additional deidentified data may be available on request and if, in accordance with ethics approval.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article. Additional deidentified data may be available on request and if, in accordance with ethics approval.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors designed the study. CM conceptualised the study and was responsible for data collection and data management, carried out the analysis, wrote the original draft of the manuscript and reviewed and edited the final manuscript. CH reviewed the analysis. JJ was the overall guratantor. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests The primary author was part of the development and creation of the DIR process in Scotland and her role as Leisure Safety Manager (for RoSPA) is partly funded by a Scottish Government Grant.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.