Butt out - baby on board

It is estimated that the cost of treating women and their infants with smoking related problems is up to £87.5 million each year (ASH, 2013). Whilst these statistics depict a major problem for the National Health Service, they challenge midwives to become change agents within this health promotion area. A desired outcome from The Maternity Strategy for Northern Ireland (DHSSPSNI, 2012) includes giving every baby and family the best start in life. Assisting women to stop smoking before conception, could help to achieve this outcome and provide opportunities for a greater start in life following birth.

Breastfeeding: let's normalise it!

Breastfeeding rates in Northern Ireland are substantially lower in Northern Ireland compared to the rest of the United Kingdom (McAndrew et al, 2012). Midwives carry a responsibility within their health promotion activities to reiterate the benefits of breastfeeding and support women to make empowered decisions with regard to feeding their baby. This poster explores some of the challenges faced by midwives in relation to supporting women to make empowered choices and explores how midwives can help normalise breastfeeding within the clinical practice setting

maternal health as a human right’s issue.

In September 2010, just days before a crucial UN summit to review progress on the MDGs, chair of the RCM board for Northern Ireland Shona Hamilton participated in Amnesty International’s conference on poverty, health and human rights, held at Stormont. She provided great personal insight into the daily lives of women in some of the world’s poorest regions and the role midwives can play in addressing the disproportionate impact of poverty on women. She was accompanied by midwifery teaching fellow at Queen’s University Shirley Stronge who has experience of working in Malawi and Ethiopia.

Managing patient deterioration: evaluation of what works.

Background: Rapid Response Systems (RRS) have been implemented nationally and internationally to improve patient safety in hospital. However, to date the majority of the RRS research evidence has focused on measuring the effectiveness of the intervention on patient outcomes. To evaluate RRS it has been recommended that a multimodal approach is required to address the broad range of process and outcome measures required to determine the effectiveness of the RRS concept. Aim: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the official RRS programme theoretical assumptions regarding how the programme is meant to work against actual practice in order to determine what works. Methods: The research design was a multiple case study approach of four wards in two hospitals in Northern Ireland. It followed the principles of realist evaluation research which allowed empirical data to be gathered to test and refine RRS programme theory [1]. This approach used a variety of mixed methods to test the programme theories including individual and focus group interviews with a purposive sample of 75 nurses and doctors, observation of ward practices and documentary analysis. The findings from the case studies were analysed and compared within and across cases to identify what works for whom and in what circumstances. Results: The RRS programme theories were critically evaluated and compared with study findings to develop a mid-range theory to explain what works, for whom in what circumstances. The findings of what works suggests that clinical experience, established working relationships, flexible implementation of protocols, ongoing experiential learning, empowerment and pre-emptive management are key to the success of RRS implementation.  Conclusion:These findings highlight the combination of factors that can improve the implementation of RRS and in light of this evidence several recommendations are made to provide policymakers with guidance and direction for their success and sustainability.References: 1.Pawson R and Tilley N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Sage Publications; LondonType of submission: Concurrent session Source of funding: Sandra Ryan Fellowship funded by the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University of Belfast

Realistic evaluation of EWS and ALERT: factors enabling and constraining implementation.

Realistic Evaluation of EWS and ALERT: factors enabling and constraining implementation Background The implementation of EWS and ALERT in practice is essential to the success of Rapid Response Systems but is dependent upon nurses utilising EWS protocols and applying ALERT best practice guidelines. To date there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of EWS or ALERT as research has primarily focused on measuring patient outcomes (cardiac arrests, ICU admissions) following the implementation of a Rapid Response Team. Complex interventions in healthcare aimed at changing service delivery and related behaviour of health professionals require a different research approach to evaluate the evidence. To understand how and why EWS and ALERT work, or might not work, research needs to consider the social, cultural and organisational influences that will impact on successful implementation in practice. This requires a research approach that considers both the processes and outcomes of complex interventions, such as EWS and ALERT, implemented in practice. Realistic Evaluation is such an approach and was used to explain the factors that enable and constrain the implementation of EWS and ALERT in practice [1]. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate factors that enabled and constrained the implementation and service delivery of early warnings systems (EWS) and ALERT in practice in order to provide direction for enabling their success and sustainability. Methods The research design was a multiple case study approach of four wards in two hospitals in Northern Ireland. It followed the principles of realist evaluation research which allowed empirical data to be gathered to test and refine RRS programme theory. This approach used a variety of mixed methods to test the programme theories including individual and focus group interviews, observation and documentary analysis in a two stage process. A purposive sample of 75 key informants participated in individual and focus group interviews. Observation and documentary analysis of EWS compliance data and ALERT training records provided further evidence to support or refute the interview findings. Data was analysed using NVIVO8 to categorise interview findings and SPSS for ALERT documentary data. These findings were further synthesised by undertaking a within and cross case comparison to explain the factors enabling and constraining EWS and ALERT. Results A cross case analysis highlighted similarities, differences and factors enabling or constraining successful implementation across the case study sites. Findings showed that personal (confidence; clinical judgement; personality), social (ward leadership; communication), organisational (workload and staffing issues; pressure from managers to complete EWS audit and targets), educational (constraints on training; no clinical educator on ward) and cultural (routine task delegated) influences impact on EWS and acute care training outcomes. There were also differences noted between medical and surgical wards across both case sites. Conclusions Realist Evaluation allows refinement and development of the RRS programme theory to explain the realities of practice. These refined RRS programme theories are capable of informing the planning of future service provision and provide direction for enabling their success and sustainability. References: 1. McGaughey J, Blackwood B, O’Halloran P, Trinder T. J. & Porter S. (2010) A realistic evaluation of Track and Trigger systems and acute care training for early recognition and management of deteriorating ward–based patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66 (4), 923-932. Type of submission: Concurrent session Source of funding: Sandra Ryan Fellowship funded by the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University of Belfast

A realistic evaluation of Early Warning Systems and acute care training in Northern Ireland: findings and recommendations

Statement of purpose The purpose of this concurrent session is to present the main findings and recommendations from a five year study evaluating the implementation of Early Warning Systems (EWS) and the Acute Life-threatening Events: Recognition and Treatment (ALERT) course in Northern Ireland. The presentation will provide delegates with an understanding of those factors that enable and constrain successful implementation of EWS and ALERT in practice in order to provide an impetus for change. Methods The research design was a multiple case study approach of four wards in two hospitals in Northern Ireland. It followed the principles of realist evaluation research which allowed empirical data to be gathered to test and refine RRS programme theory [1]. The stages included identifying the programme theories underpinning EWS and ALERT, generating hypotheses, gathering empirical evidence and refining the programme theories. This approach used a variety of mixed methods including individual and focus group interviews, observation and documentary analysis of EWS compliance data and ALERT training records. A within and across case comparison facilitated the development of mid-range theories from the research evidence. Results The official RRS theories developed from the realist synthesis were critically evaluated and compared with the study findings to develop a mid-range theory to explain what works, for whom in what circumstances. The findings of what works suggests that clinical experience, established working relationships, flexible implementation of protocols, ongoing experiential learning, empowerment and pre-emptive management are key to the success of EWS and ALERT implementation. Each concept is presented as ‘context, mechanism and outcome configurations’ to provide an understanding of how the context impacts on individual reasoning or behaviour to produce certain outcomes. Conclusion These findings highlight the combination of factors that can improve the implementation and sustainability of EWS and ALERT and in light of this evidence several recommendations are made to provide policymakers with guidance and direction for future policy development. References: 1. Pawson R and Tilley N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Sage Publications; London Type of submission: Concurrent session Source of funding: Sandra Ryan Fellowship funded by the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University of Belfast

Preparing assessments and examinations. Common errors and good practice.

Assessment forms an important part of the student learning experience and students place a high value on the quality of feedback that they receive from academic staff on where they might improve on their examinations or assignments. However while feedback is important the quality of the actual assessment itself before students undertake an examination or commence writing an assignment is also important. It is imperative that students are clear in their understanding of what is expected of them in order to achieve a particular grade and that there is lack of ambiguity in examinations or assignments. Biggs (2003) highlighted the importance of clarity in what students are expected to be able to do at the end of a unit of study, and that intended learning outcomes should be clearly aligned to the assessment and communicated to students so that they can structure their learning activities to optimize their assessment performance. However as Rust (2002) highlighted there are often inconsistencies in assessment practices ranging from a mis-match of assessment and learning outcomes to the inclusion of additional learning criteria and lack of clarity in the instructions. Such inconsistencies and unacceptable errors in examination papers can undermine student confidence in the assessment process
In order to try and minimise such inconsistencies an internal assessment group was set up October 2013 within the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Queens University Belfast, consisting of representative academic staff from across the range of undergraduate and post graduate courses in nursing and midwifery. The assessment group was to be a point of reference for all school examinations with a particular remit to develop an assessment strategy for all nursing and midwifery programmes and to ensure that all assessments comply with current best practice and with Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) requirements.
Aim
This paper aims to highlight some examples of good practice and common errors that were found in assignments and examinations that were submitted to the assessment group for review.
References

Biggs. J. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University – What the Student Does 2nd Edition SRHE / Open University Press, Buckingham.
Rust, C.( 2002) The impact of assessment on student learning, Active Learning in Higher education Vol3(2):145-158

Nursing Revalidation

This article details the Nursing and Midwifery Council revalidation requirements essential for all registered nurses and midwives in the United Kingdom. Nursing revalidation is effective from April 2016 and is built on the pre-existing Post-registration education and practice. Unlike the previous process, revalidation provides a more robust system which is clearly linked to the Code and should assist towards the delivery of quality and safe effective care

Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS: Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.

Supporting an ethnic minority woman's choice for pain relief in labour: a reflection

Despite professional expectations for midwives to provide care to women that is founded in equality and recognises diversity (Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2015), women from ethnic minority populations consistently suggest that they are not heard (Briscoe and Lavender, 2009; Tobin et al, 2014). This article reflects upon a situation where a Portuguese woman with limited English speaking ability was denied access to epidural anaesthesia as the midwife felt that she could not give valid consent to the procedure without the presence of an interpreter. The midwife’s role within this situation will be reflected upon and implications for midwifery practice identified.