Focus groups

Focus groups (Kitzinger, 1984) were chosen as one of the methods, with the aim to use group interaction to explore doctors’ and nurses’ perceptions of MEs and how they learn from them on the PICU. The benefits of focus groups

include the way they stimulate exchange of ideas, as individual opinions are formed and shaped through talking and arguing with colleagues about events and issues in everyday work life, focus groups tap into the ordinary social processes and everyday social interchange (Wilkinson, 1998). However, it would be naive to assume that focus groups produce data that are completely ‘natural’ as focus groups artificially set up a situation for the purposes of the study (Kitzinger, 1994). The focus groups allowed me to set up an environment in which the participants could discuss their views, listen to the views of others and reflect on what others were saying. Holloway and Weaver (2002) describe this as empowering participants to more easily express their views. This

opportunity for discussion meant that focus groups were my preferred method of collecting data. Kitzinger (1994) refers to focus groups as being more naturalistic compared to semi-structured interviews. However, despite their

strengths there are some drawbacks to using focus groups including the researcher having difficulty managing the debate and less control of the

process than in one to one interviews (Holloway and Weaver, 2002). One or two individuals may dominate the discussions, which may lead to group conformity or convergent answers (Carey and Smith, 1994). As such it cannot be assumed that there is conformity or group consensus between the members of the group, even if it appears so (Holloway and Wheeler, 2002), as some people may not be comfortable at expressing their views in front of other people (Polit and Hungler, 1997). It was acknowledged that nurses, doctors, pharmacists and managers would differ in their experiences of MEs and that there could be different levels of power in play between different professions and individuals. Krueger and Casey (2000) advise that focus groups are not suitable where a hierarchical relationship exists; for this reason the researcher arranged to conduct separate focus groups; one focus group for the nurses and one for the doctors, consultants and managers.

Focus groups require a topic guide (Kreuger, 1998). The topic guide was developed (Appendix 1) to guide discussion around MEs in general on the PICU, but not individual events that people had been involved with. The topic guide was designed to incorporate the main themes identified within Chang et al.’s (2007) theoretical framework of learning from failures. The questions were presented in a logical order to generate and guide discussion around the research aims and objectives. The researcher was aware that although the topic guide was a cue to guide my discussion with the participants, it was important to listen attentively, to determine the flow of the discussion and pick up areas of consensus or confrontation.

As part of the moderating focus group training, the researcher learnt to avoid using closed questions and not to ask double questions. The researcher was aware that as a band 5 PICU nurse not to make assumptions based on prior experiences and as such not to agree or disagree with the participants, but to remain neutral. New topic areas were opened with a broad question and then focused open specific questions were used to probe and explore in greater detail. The researcher was conscious not to focus on just one participant, to use visual stimuli to those participants who were not speaking and verbally

encourage a response from them to join the discussion. The researcher was aware of the need to allow some time for silent thought, to allow the participants to interpret the questions being asked. The researcher used probing questions such as ‘what do you mean by that?’ and ‘could you give me more detail?’ to clarify and gain more detail. It was important to have a second researcher

present at each focus group to take notes and allow the moderator to focus fully on the discussion (Holloway and Wheeler, 2002). The researcher made notes straight after the focus groups to record how the participants had interacted and any nonverbal cues that had been observed.

The scenarios were introduced at the beginning of the focus group and interviews (apart from the consultants and managers focus group) to engage the participants and encourage them to interact with each other early on (two types of scenarios for doctors and nurses, based on prescribing and

administration errors respectively, see Appendix 2) The scenarios were developed and based on a previous study (Saradikar et al. 2010), which

medication errors used in the scenarios were representative of a similar

medication error that had occurred on the PICU, giving the advantage of adding a ‘real life’ focus to the discussion from the onset between the participants to stimulate and prompt discussion. A weakness of using the scenarios, may have been the over reliance of participants using memory, which may have limited the output and quality of data. Furthermore, it has been reported that there is often a difference between what people say they do and their actual practice (Langford and McDonagh, 2003). McCabe (2002) advises that focus groups cannot reflect real life scenarios, because they are conducted in places and times that are removed from where the actual experiences have occurred. Therefore, this may have impacted on the validity of the discussion. The

scenarios facilitated data to be collected on participants opinions around actual reporting of MEs, participants were asked to complete a Likert scale on the likelihood of staff reporting an error based on four different types of MEs (Appendix 2). It allowed exploration of different views and highlighted any differences within the groups. The Likert scales were not ‘personalised’ to ascertain whether the actual participant would report it, but to gain an insight into the reporting culture on PICU as a whole.

Focus groups require a person to moderate them and a person to take notes. The role of the moderator should be flexibility, open-mindedness, skill in eliciting information and the ability to create an open and non-threatening environment (Holloway and Wheeler, 2002). The moderator should be able to stimulate and guide the discussion. However, Morgan (1997) advises in exploratory studies, to hold back on too much questioning, where perceptions are being examined, to

gain a true perspective and not allow the biases of the moderator to be expressed.

The environment for the setting of the focus group is important in order to set the right atmosphere, in that it should be relatively spacious, comfortable and allow participants to sit in a circle around a table if possible, as the circle arrangement encourages direct eye contact and the table acts as a protective barrier to encourage discussion (Kreuger, 1998). A pilot focus group was

arranged with volunteers from the PICU, to allow the researcher to practice the role as moderator and guiding a group discussion. The session was recorded, which allowed the researcher to identify where probing questions or indeed silence would elicit more information.

Morgan (1988) suggests a sample size of four to twelve participants. A sampling framework was not used due to the low response rate to participate within the focus groups. The focus groups were scheduled to last one hour, dictated by the participants’ own time and funding allocated for the nurses to attend. The researcher moderated the nurse focus group. One of the researchers academic supervisors (LT) took notes. (LT: a senior nurse on PICU) moderated the other focus group (nurse manager and consultants), where the researcher then took notes, because it was felt that this may have been problematic for the

researcher in her role as a Band 5 nurse asking questions of her managers.

Before each focus group started, the topic was introduced, staff acknowledged reading the participant information sheets and then informed written consent was given. Ground rules were introduced as noted on the topic guide (Appendix

1), the tape recorder was introduced and turned on. All participants and

researchers were invited to the focus groups and interviews without uniform, to remove any distinction in seniority (Kreuger, 1998).