Destination Open Access: Getting Researchers On Board

This Open Access (OA) Poster - ‘Destination Open Access: Getting Researchers on Board’, was devised by the Queen’s University Belfast’s OA Team. It outlines the advocacy strategy undertaken to strengthen researchers’ uptake of OA at the University. Research funders, such as the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), are increasingly mandating that researchers make their work publically available via an institutional repository. It is therefore imperative that researchers and departments fully engage with open access to ensure future funding.

The team’s advocacy strategy centres around collaboration with the Heads of Schools, Subject Librarians, the Research and Enterprise Office and, most importantly, the researchers themselves. The team regularly organises training sessions and events, on understanding OA, funder compliance and using the institutional repository. We also run outreach activities, such as practical drop-in sessions, promotional give-aways, OA updates to library staff and direct communications to schools. Finally, the team maintain a strong online presence via LibGuides, LibAnswers, the Library Blog and Twitter. We utilise these platforms to highlight topical OA issues, to advertise events, to provide support materials and to interact with researchers.

Statistics indicate that researchers are increasingly engaging with the OA training, communications and outreach events. Since August 2014 over 1200 researchers have attended advocacy sessions. Additionally, the numbers of papers uploaded to the repository each year has steadily increased and there are now over 3, 000 full-text OA research outputs in the Queen’s Research Portal.

This reflects positively on the team’s established approach of working with researchers to develop an OA culture within the University. Whilst it is clear that an open access strategy is essential, support for the open access ethos must come from individual researchers and Schools in order for the University to reach its desired destination of maximum uptake of open access.

No second chance: the experiences of junior neonatal nurses in providing end-of-life care for babies and families in the NNU

Background

An infant’s death is acutely stressful for parents and professionals. Little is known about junior nurses’ experiences providing end-of-life care in Neonatal Units (NNU).

Objectives

To better understand junior nurses’ experiences providing end-of-life care in NNU, the study explored the challenges and opportunities inherent in their practice relating to providing such care to babies and their families.

Methods

Neonatal nurses (n=12) with less than 3 years’ experience who were undergoing a neonatal education programme participated. Two focus groups were convened each with 6 nurses. The Ethics Committee at the relevant University approved the study. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used in the focus groups to build consensus around the challenges faced by junior nurses, alongside suggested developments in improving future care provision. Primary analysis involved successive rounds of ranking and decision making whilst secondary analysis involved thematic analysis.

Results

The study identified the pressures these nurses felt in having only one chance to ‘get it right’ for the infants and their families. They perceived the need for further ‘education and training’ highlighting that improved education provision would include both additional courses and internal training sessions. Greater ‘support’ from mentors themselves more experienced in this aspect of care within the NNU was identified as important in addressing issues around confidence building and skill development.

Conclusions

The results highlight junior nurses’ need for specific education and mentorship around end-of-life care for babies. This presentation will outline the implications for practice, education and further research.

Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives

Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives C Morgan, L Adams, J Murray, R Dunlop, IK Walsh. Ian K Walsh, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6DP Background and Purpose: Structured communication tools are used to improve team communication quality.1,2 The Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) tool is widely adopted within patient safety.3 SBAR effectiveness is reportedly equivocal, suggesting use is not sustained beyond initial training.4-6 Understanding perspectives of those using SBAR may further improve clinical communication. We investigated senior medical undergraduate perspectives on SBAR, particularly when communicating with senior colleagues. Methodology: Mixed methods data collection was used. A previously piloted questionnaire with 12 five point Lickert scale questions and 3 open questions was given to all final year medical students. A subgroup also participated in 10 focus groups, deploying strictly structured audio-recorded questions. Selection was by convenience sampling, data gathered by open text questions and comments transcribed verbatim. In-vivo coding (iterative, towards data saturation) preceded thematic analysis. Results: 233 of 255 students (91%) completed the survey. 1. There were clearly contradictory viewpoints on SBAR usage. A recurrent theme was a desire for formal feedback and a relative lack of practice/experience with SBAR. 2. Students reported SBAR as having variable interpretation between individuals; limiting use as a shared mental model. 3. Brief training sessions are insufficient to embed the tool. 4. Most students reported SBAR helping effective communication, especially by providing structure in stressful situations. 5. Only 18.5% of students felt an alternative resource might be needed. Sub analysis of the themes highlighted: A. Lack of clarity regarding what information to include and information placement within the acronym, B. Senior colleague negative response to SBAR C. Lack of conciseness with the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Despite a wide range of contradictory interpretation of SBAR utility, most students wish to retain the resource. More practice opportunities/feedback may enhance user confidence and understanding. References: (1) Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004 Oct;13(Suppl 1):85-90. (2) d'Agincourt-Canning LG, Kissoon N, Singal M, Pitfield AF. Culture, communication and safety: lessons from the airline industry. Indian J Pediatr 2011 Jun;78(6):703-708. (3) Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009 Oct;13(5):384-390. (4) Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 Jun;38(6):261-268. (5) Ludikhuize J, de Jonge E, Goossens A. Measuring adherence among nurses one year after training in applying the Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation instruments. Resuscitation 2011 Nov;82(11):1428-1433. (6) Cunningham NJ, Weiland TJ, van Dijk J, Paddle P, Shilkofski N, Cunningham NY. Telephone referrals by junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of SBAR in a simulated setting. Postgrad Med J 2012 Nov;88(1045):619-626.