An exploratory study of specialist and generalist teachers: predicting self efficacy in delivering primary physical education.

We aimed to determine whether primary school teachers’ motivational regulations to exercise and self efficacy in delivering a physical education (PE) lesson are different based on prior PE training. Two groups of qualified primary school teachers were recruited; PE specialists and a group of generalist primary school teachers who also teach PE. All teachers completed the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2, International Physical Activity Questionnaire and the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. PE specialists demonstrated significantly higher levels of intrinsic motivation towards exercise participation and took part in more physical activity in comparison to the generalist teachers. Regression analysis showed that being a PE specialist predicted higher scores in instructional strategies and classroom management in PE. Our findings support the useof Self Determination Theory concepts in understanding teacher’s exercise participation motivations. These findings have implications for the modelling role of teachers in encouraging children to be physically active.

Impact of community based, specialist palliative care teams on hospitalisations and emergency department visits late in life and hospital deaths: a pooled analysis

Objective: To determine the pooled effect of exposure to one of 11 specialist palliative care teams providing services in patients’ homes.Design: Pooled analysis of a retrospective cohort study.Setting: Ontario, Canada.Participants: 3109 patients who received care from specialist palliative care teams in 2009-11 (exposed) matched by propensity score to 3109 patients who received usual care (unexposed).Intervention: The palliative care teams studied served different geographies and varied in team composition and size but had the same core team members and role: a core group of palliative care physicians, nurses, and family physicians who provide integrated palliative care to patients in their homes. The teams’ role was to manage symptoms, provide education and care, coordinate services, and be available without interruption regardless of time or day.Main outcome measures: Patients (a) being in hospital in the last two weeks of life; (b) having an emergency department visit in the last two weeks of life; or (c) dying in hospital.Results: In both exposed and unexposed groups, about 80% had cancer and 78% received end of life homecare services for the same average duration. Across all palliative care teams, 970 (31.2%) of the exposed group were in hospital and 896 (28.9%) had an emergency department visit in the last two weeks of life respectively, compared with 1219 (39.3%) and 1070 (34.5%) of the unexposed group (P<0.001). The pooled relative risks of being in hospital and having an emergency department visit in late life comparing exposed versus unexposed were 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.76) and 0.77 (0.69 to 0.86) respectively. Fewer exposed than unexposed patients died in hospital (503 (16.2%) v 887 (28.6%), P<0.001), and the pooled relative risk of dying in hospital was 0.46 (0.40 to 0.52).Conclusions: Community based specialist palliative care teams, despite variation in team composition and geographies, were effective at reducing acute care use and hospital deaths at the end of life.

The lifetime direct cost of periodontal treatment:A case study from a norwegian specialist practice

Background: Successful periodontal treatment requires a commitment to regular lifelong maintenance and may be perceived by patients to be costly. This study calculates the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment in the setting of a specialist periodontal practice and investigates the cost implications of choosing not to proceed with such treatment. Methods: Data from patients treated in a specialist practice in Norway were used to calculate the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment that included baseline periodontal treatment, regular maintenance, retreatment, and replacing teeth lost during maintenance. Incremental costs for alternative strategies based on opting to forego periodontal treatment or maintenance and to replace any teeth lost with either bridgework or implants were calculated. Results: Patients who completed baseline periodontal treatment but did not have any additional maintenance or retreatment could replace only three teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before the cost of replacing additional teeth would exceed the cost of lifetime periodontal treatment. Patients who did not have any periodontal treatment could replace ≤4 teeth with bridgework or implants before a replacement strategy became more expensive. Conclusions: Within the limits of the assumptions made, periodontal treatment in a Norwegian specialist periodontal practice is cost-effective when compared to an approach that relies on opting to replace teeth lost as a result of progressive periodontitis with fixed restorations. In particular, patients who have initial comprehensive periodontal treatment but do not subsequently comply with maintenance could, on average, replace ≤3 teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before this approach would exceed the direct cost of lifetime periodontal treatment in the setting of the specialist practice studied. © 2012 American Academy of Periodontology.

Developing a best practice model for partnership practice between specialist palliative care and intellectual disability services: a mixed methods study

Background: The lack of access to good quality palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities is highlighted in the international literature. In response, more partnership practice in end-of-life care is proposed. 
Aim: This study aimed to develop a best practice model to guide and promote partnership practice between specialist palliative care and intellectual disability services. 
Design: A mixed methods research design involving two phases was used, underpinned by a conceptual model for partnership practice. 
Setting/participants: Phase 1 involved scoping end-of-life care to people with intellectual disability, based on self-completed questionnaires. In all, 47 of 66 (71.2%) services responded. In Phase 2, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample recruited of 30 health and social care professionals working in intellectual disability and palliative care services, who had provided palliative care to someone with intellectual disability. For both phases, data were collected from primary and secondary care in one region of the United Kingdom. 
Results: In Phase 1, examples of good practice were apparent. However, partnership practice was infrequent and unmet educational needs were identified. Four themes emerged from the interviews in Phase 2: challenges and issues in end-of-life care, sharing and learning, supporting and empowering and partnership in practice. 
Conclusion: Joint working and learning between intellectual disability and specialist palliative care were seen as key and fundamental. A framework for partnership practice between both services has been developed which could have international applicability and should be explored with other services in end-of-life care.