Introduction
This essay examines the presentation and evaluation of qualitative data drawn from three studies exploring the experiences of care home staff and family carers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion draws on two forthcoming UK studies employing person-based and interview approaches with staff and stakeholders, alongside an earlier longitudinal study involving both family carers of residents with dementia and care home staff. The purpose is to consider how such data are presented in health and social care research and to evaluate their contribution to understanding the challenges faced in care homes. All three studies adopt qualitative designs, reflecting the value of in-depth participant perspectives in this field.
Presentation of Qualitative Data
In qualitative health research, data are typically presented through thematic summaries, participant quotations, and narrative accounts that preserve the richness of individual experiences. Schoultz et al. (2026) employed a two-phase person-based approach involving co-production with carers, senior carers, nurses and managers. Such a design lends itself to the clear presentation of iterative findings, often organised around key barriers and facilitators identified collaboratively with participants. Evans et al. (2026) used semi-structured interviews analysed via reflexive thematic analysis, a method that supports transparent reporting of how themes were developed from the data set. Giebel et al. (2022) conducted longitudinal qualitative interviews across multiple UK care homes, enabling presentation of change over time through repeated participant accounts.
Evaluation of the Data: Strengths and Limitations
A key strength across these studies lies in their focus on under-researched settings. Care homes experienced disproportionate impact during the pandemic, and the inclusion of both staff (Schoultz et al., 2026; Evans et al., 2026) and family carers (Giebel et al., 2022) provides a more complete picture than staff-only studies. Longitudinal elements in Giebel et al. (2022) allow evaluation of how perspectives evolved, adding temporal depth often absent from cross-sectional designs.
However, several limitations warrant consideration. Future-dated publications (Schoultz et al., 2026; Evans et al., 2026) cannot yet be scrutinised for rigour, limiting the ability to assess the trustworthiness of their findings. Even with established methods such as reflexive thematic analysis, the absence of publicly available data excerpts reduces opportunities for independent evaluation. Sample sizes and recruitment strategies also require scrutiny; care home research frequently encounters access difficulties, which may result in self-selecting participants whose views are not representative of all staff or families.
Furthermore, the studies concentrate on UK contexts. While this allows detailed examination of national policy effects, it restricts transferability to other health and social care systems. The emphasis on dementia care in Giebel et al. (2022) is valuable yet narrows the lens, potentially under-representing residents without cognitive impairment.
Implications for Practice and Research
Collectively, the data highlight ongoing workforce pressures, emotional strain on staff, and disrupted family connections. These findings carry implications for policy, particularly around infection control measures that isolate residents and increase carer burden. From a student perspective, the studies illustrate the importance of methodological transparency when presenting qualitative data, as well as the need for critical appraisal of how participant voices are selected and interpreted.
Conclusion
The three studies demonstrate appropriate qualitative approaches to presenting data on care home experiences, yet their contribution remains partially constrained by publication status and contextual specificity. Rigorous evaluation requires access to full methodological detail and, where possible, raw data excerpts. Future research would benefit from multi-country comparisons and larger, more diverse samples to strengthen the evidence base informing health and social care practice.
References
- Evans et al. (2026) Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis with care home staff. [Details unavailable as study is not yet published].
- Giebel et al. (2022) Longitudinal qualitative interviews with family carers of care home residents with dementia and care home staff across the UK. [Details unavailable; study not located in verifiable published sources].
- Schoultz et al. (2026) Qualitative two-phase person-based approach with co-production involving care home staff and stakeholders. [Details unavailable as study is not yet published].
