Comparing long-term placements for young children in care: Does type of placement really matter?

This paper presents findings from the third phase of a longitudinal study, entitled Care Pathways and Outcomes, which has been tracking the placements and measuring outcomes for a population of children (n = 374) who were under the age of five and in care in Northern Ireland on the 31st March 2000. It explores how a sub-sample of these children at age nine to 14 years old were getting on in the placements provided for them, in comparative terms across five placement types: adoption; foster care; kinship foster care (with relatives); on Residence Order; and living with birth parents. This specifically focused on the development of attachment and self-concept from the perspective of the children, and behavioural and emotional function, and parenting stress, from the perspective of parents and carers. Findings showed no significant placement effect from the perspective of children, and a statistically weak, but descriptively compelling, effect from the perspective of parents. The findings challenge the notion of adoption as the gold standard in long-term placements, specifically from the perspective of children in terms of their parent/carer attachments and self-concept, and highlight what appears to be the central importance of placement longevity for delivering positive longer-term outcomes for these children, irrespective of placement type.

Addressing the theory practice gap in nurse education: evaluating teaching through audit against NMC standards and final management placement

Introduction
This paper outlines an innovative approach to auditing and evaluating the content of a management and leadership module for undergraduate nursing students after their final management clinical placement. Normally evaluations of teaching in a module take place at the end of a teaching module and therefore do not properly reflect the value of the teaching in relation to practical clinical experience.
Aim
This audit and evaluation sought to explore both the practical value of the teaching and learning, and also the degree to which it the teaching reflected against the NMC Standards of Education and Learning (2010 domain 3).
Methods
Having piloted the evaluative tool with an earlier cohort of nursing students, this evaluation explored both a quantitative assessment employing a Personal Response System (n =172), together with a qualitative dimension (n=116), thus delivering paper-based comments and reflections from students on the value and practicality of the module teaching theory to their final clinical management experience. The quantitative audit data were analysed for frequencies and cross tabulation and the qualitative audit data were thematically analysed.
Results
Results suggest a significant proportion of the students, appreciated the quality of the standard of teaching, but more importantly, ‘valued or highly valued’ the teaching and learning in relation to how it helped to significantly inform their management placement experience. A smaller proportion of the students underlined limitations and areas in which further improvement can be made in teaching and learning to the module.
Conclusion
Significantly positive evaluation by the students of the practical value of teaching and learning, to the theoretical management module. This has proved a useful auditing approach in assessing the theoretical teaching to student’s Level 3 clinical experience, and facilitated significant recommendations as far as developing the teaching and learning to better reflect the practice needs of nursing students

Feasibility, normative heuristics and the proper place of historical responsibility – a reply to Ohndorf et al.

In this comment, we pick up three points raised by Ohndorf et al. (2015) in their reply to our ethical assessment of the German Advisory Council’s Budget Approach (WBGUBA). First, we discuss and clarify the relationship between ethics and political feasibility, highlighting that the way Ohndorf et el. use feasibility creates an unwarranted status quo bias. Second, we explain the proper place historical responsibility should have within the WBGUBA, stressing the fact that the reasons why we choose one policy proposal over another matter. Third, we analyze the limited extent to which a normative heuristic should motivate an ethically ambitious policy proposal like the WBGUBA.