Using Workload Measurement Tools in Diverse Care Contexts: the Experience of Staff in Mental Health and Learning Disability Inpatient Settings

Introduction The critical challenge of determining the correct level and skill-mix of nursing staff required to deliver safe and effective healthcare has become an international concern. It is recommended that evidence-based staffing decisions are central to the development of future workforce plans. Workforce planning in mental health and learning disability nursing is largely under-researched with few tools available to aid the development of evidence-based staffing levels in these environments. Aim It was the aim of this study to explore the experience of staff using the Safer Nursing Care Tool (SNCT) and the Mental Health and Learning Disability Workload Tool (MHLDWT) in mental health and learning disability environments. Method Following a 4-week trial period of both tools a survey was distributed via Qualtrics on-line survey software to staff members who used the tools during this time. Results The results of the survey revealed that the tools were considered a useful resource to aid staffing decisions; however specific criticisms were highlighted regarding their suitability to psychiatric intensive care units (PICU) and learning disability wards. Discussion This study highlights that further development of workload measurement tools is required to support the implementation of effective workforce planning strategies within mental health and learning disability services. Implications for Practice With increasing fiscal pressures the need to provide cost-effective care is paramount within NHS services. Evidence-based workforce planning is therefore necessary to ensure that appropriate levels of staff are determined. This is of particular importance within mental health and learning disability services due to the reduction in the number of available beds and an increasing focus on purposeful admission and discharge.

Foundation Doctors and Dyslexia: a Qualitative Study of Their Experiences and Coping Strategies

Background Dyslexia is the most common form of specific learning difficulty affecting approximately 6% of the general UK population and believed to affect approximately 2% of UK medical students. The impact of dyslexia on early practice has not been studied. Objectives To develop an understanding of the challenges faced by doctors with dyslexia in the first year of practice and their support requirements. Methods Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with seven foundation year 1 doctors with dyslexia from Scottish hospitals between March 2013 and August 2013. Results Foundation doctors indicated that due to their dyslexia, they experience difficulty with all forms of communication, time management and anxiety. There were concerns about disclosure of their dyslexia to colleagues and supervisors. Coping strategies used frequently were safety-netting and planning; technology solutions did offer some assistance. Conclusions Although technological interventions have the potential to offer benefits to foundation doctors with dyslexia, increased openness about a diagnosis of dyslexia with discussion between doctor and supervisors about the challenges and anxieties is likely to provide the most benefit

Gender Differences in Early Reading Strategies: a Comparison of Synthetic Phonics Only with a Mixed Approach to Teaching Reading to 4-5 Year-Old Children

A survey of primary schools in England found that girls outperform boys in English across all phases (Ofsted in Moving English forward. Ofsted, Manchester, 2012). The gender gap remains an on-going issue in England, especially for reading attainment. This paper presents evidence of gender differences in learning to read that emerged during the development of a reading scheme for 4- and 5-year-old children in which 372 children from Reception classes in sixteen schools participated in 12-month trials. There were three arms per trial: Intervention non-PD (non-phonically decodable text with mixed methods teaching); Intervention PD (phonically decodable text with mixed methods teaching); and a ‘business as usual’ control condition SP (synthetic phonics and decodable text). Assignment to Intervention condition was randomised. Standardised measures of word reading and comprehension were used. The research provides statistically significant evidence suggesting that boys learn more easily using a mix of whole-word and synthetic phonics approaches. In addition, the evidence indicates that boys learn to read more easily using the natural-style language of ‘real’ books including vocabulary which goes beyond their assumed decoding ability. At post-test, boys using the nonphonically decodable text with mixed methods (Intervention A) were 8 months ahead in reading comprehension compared to boys using a wholly synthetic phonics approach.