6 resultados para Experience time
em Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Purpose To provide a brief overview of the literature to date which has focussed on co-production within mental healthcare in the UK, including service user and carer involvement and collaboration. Design The paper presents key outcomes from studies which have explicitly attempted to introduce co-produced care in addition to specific tools designed to encourage co-production within mental health services. The paper debates the cultural and ideological shift required for staff, service users and family members to undertake co-produced care and outlines challenges ahead with respect to service redesign and new roles in practice. Findings Informal carers (family and friends) are recognised as a fundamental resource for mental health service provision, as well as a rich source of expertise through experience, yet their views are rarely solicited by mental health professionals or taken into account during decision-making. This issue is considered alongside new policy recommendations which advocate the development of co-produced services and care. Research Limitations Despite the launch of a number of initiatives designed to build on peer experience and support, there has been a lack of attention on the differing dynamic which remains evident between healthcare professionals and people using mental health services. Co-production sheds a light on the blurring of roles, trust and shared endeavour (Slay and Stephens, 2013) but, despite an increase in peer recovery workers across England, there has been little research or service development designed to focus explicitly on this particular dynamic. Practical Implications Despite these challenges, coproduction in mental healthcare represents a real opportunity for the skills and experience of family members to be taken into account and could provide a mechanism to achieve the ‘triangle of care’ with input, recognition and respect given to all (service users, carers, professionals) whose lives are touched by mental distress. However, lack of attention in relation to carer perspectives, expertise and potential involvement could undermine the potential for coproduction to act as a vehicle to encourage person-centred care which accounts for social in addition to clinical factors. Social Implications The families of people with severe and enduring mental illness (SMI) assume a major responsibility for the provision of care and support to their relatives over extended time periods (Rose et al, 2004). Involving carers in discussions about care planning could help to provide a wider picture about the impact of mental health difficulties, beyond symptom reduction. The ‘co-production of care’ reflects a desire to work meaningfully and fully with service users and carers. However, to date, little work has been undertaken in order to coproduce services through the ‘triangle of care’ with carers bringing their own skills, resources and expertise. Originality/Value This paper debates the current involvement of carers across mental healthcare and debates whether co-production could be a vehicle to utilise carer expertise, enhance quality and satisfaction with mental healthcare. The critique of current work highlights the danger of increasing expectations on service providers to undertake work aligned to key initiatives (shared decision-making, person-centred care, co-production), that have common underpinning principles but, in the absence of practical guidance, could be addressed in isolation rather than as an integrated approach within a ‘triangle of care’.
Resumo:
Student response systems (SRS) are hand-held devices or mobile phone polling systems which collate real-time, individual responses to on-screen questions. Previous research examining their role in higher education has highlighted both advantages and disadvantages of their use. This paper explores how different SRS influence the learning experience of psychology students across different levels of their programme. Across two studies, first year students’ experience of using Turningpoint clickers and second year students’ experience of using Poll Everywhere was investigated. Evaluations of both studies revealed that SRS has a number of positive impacts on learning, including enhanced engagement, active learning, peer interaction, and formative feedback. Technical and practical issues emerged as consistent barriers to the use of SRS. Discussion of these findings and the authors’ collective experiences of these technologies are used to provide insight into the way in which SRS can be effectively integrated within undergraduate psychology programmes.
Resumo:
Background. The rarity of childhood cancers makes providing palliative care in the community an unusual event for primary care practitioners. Providing this care requires effective interprofessional collaboration with the team that forms to provide the care often working together for the first and only time. Objective. To explore the experiences of primary care practitioners following their involvement in the palliative care of a child with cancer at home. Methods. The study design was a community-based qualitative study. The study location was the West Midlands region. Purposeful sample of GPs and community nurses involved in providing palliative care to 12 children. One-to-one in-depth interviews with 47 primary care professionals (10 GPs and 37 community nurses) and 5 facilitated case discussions were undertaken. Field notes were documented and grounded theory data analysis undertaken: chronological comparative data analysis identifying generated themes. Results. GPs had minimal input into the preceding care of children undergoing treatment for cancer but sought to re-establish their role at the child’s transition to palliative care. GPs felt they had a role to play and could add value to this phase of care, highlighted their continuing role with the child’s family and acknowledged that they had gained from the experience of contributing. However, lack of specialist knowledge and uncertainty about their role within the team made this more challenging. In contrast, community nurses were routinely involved in both active treatment and palliation care phases. There was little evidence of collaboration between the specialist and primary care professionals involved. There was considerable variation in out of hours provision across cases. Conclusions. Engaging primary care practitioners needs to be more actively anticipated and negotiated at the transition to palliation. Variation in out of hours care is another cause for concern. Enhancing inter-professional collaboration and planning during both active and palliative care phases may help. Keywords. Cancer, family medicine, palliative care, paediatric.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Total hip replacements (THRs) and total knee replacements (TKRs) are common elective procedures. In the REsearch STudies into the ORthopaedic Experience (RESTORE) programme, we explored the care and experiences of patients with osteoarthritis after being listed for THR and TKR up to the time when an optimal outcome should be expected. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a programme of research studies to work towards improving patient outcomes after THR and TKR. METHODS: We used methodologies appropriate to research questions: systematic reviews, qualitative studies, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), feasibility studies, cohort studies and a survey. Research was supported by patient and public involvement. RESULTS: Systematic review of longitudinal studies showed that moderate to severe long-term pain affects about 7–23% of patients after THR and 10–34% after TKR. In our cohort study, 10% of patients with hip replacement and 30% with knee replacement showed no clinically or statistically significant functional improvement. In our review of pain assessment few research studies used measures to capture the incidence, character and impact of long-term pain. Qualitative studies highlighted the importance of support by health and social professionals for patients at different stages of the joint replacement pathway. Our review of longitudinal studies suggested that patients with poorer psychological health, physical function or pain before surgery had poorer long-term outcomes and may benefit from pre-surgical interventions. However, uptake of a pre-operative pain management intervention was low. Although evidence relating to patient outcomes was limited, comorbidities are common and may lead to an increased risk of adverse events, suggesting the possible value of optimising pre-operative management. The evidence base on clinical effectiveness of pre-surgical interventions, occupational therapy and physiotherapy-based rehabilitation relied on small RCTs but suggested short-term benefit. Our feasibility studies showed that definitive trials of occupational therapy before surgery and post-discharge group-based physiotherapy exercise are feasible and acceptable to patients. Randomised trial results and systematic review suggest that patients with THR should receive local anaesthetic infiltration for the management of long-term pain, but in patients receiving TKR it may not provide additional benefit to femoral nerve block. From a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, local anaesthetic infiltration was a cost-effective treatment in primary THR. In qualitative interviews, patients and health-care professionals recognised the importance of participating in the RCTs. To support future interventions and their evaluation, we conducted a study comparing outcome measures and analysed the RCTs as cohort studies. Analyses highlighted the importance of different methods in treating and assessing hip and knee osteoarthritis. There was an inverse association between radiographic severity of osteoarthritis and pain and function in patients waiting for TKR but no association in THR. Different pain characteristics predicted long-term pain in THR and TKR. Outcomes after joint replacement should be assessed with a patient-reported outcome and a functional test. CONCLUSIONS: The RESTORE programme provides important information to guide the development of interventions to improve long-term outcomes for patients with osteoarthritis receiving THR and TKR. Issues relating to their evaluation and the assessment of patient outcomes are highlighted. Potential interventions at key times in the patient pathway were identified and deserve further study, ultimately in the context of a complex intervention.
Resumo:
Objectives: Care farms enable people who are in some way vulnerable to engage with agricultural places and farming activities. This study investigates how this impacts on the health and well-being of service users and explores associated processes and outcomes. Design: A mixed methods design was adopted that allowed for the integration of quantitative measurements of change with qualitative descriptions of this change. A pragmatic approach provided sufficient flexibility to support the investigation of complex contexts. Methods: A total of 216 service users completed an initial questionnaire, and 137 (63%) of this number provided comparative data in a follow-up questionnaire. Questionnaires contained multiple choice and open-ended questions alongside standardized health and well-being measures requiring Likert-format responses. Semi-structured interviews with 33 service users allowed personal experiences to be detailed. Results: Statistical analysis of well-being measure scores identified significant positive relationships with the length of time people had been attending the care farm. Questionnaire and interview data presented health benefits as being enabled by the farm environment, the positive experience as supporting personal development, and associated social interactions as becoming increasingly influential as time progressed. Conclusions: The health and well-being outcomes that result from participating at a care farm influence multiple elements of the human condition and apply amongst vulnerable people with a wide range of personal needs. Care farms have access to a potentially unique range of resources that can support many service users in becoming happier and healthier individuals.