scholarly journals Leading health reform: a critical review of ‘leadership’ within allied health competency standards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Dalton ◽  
Kerryn Butler-Henderson ◽  
Toby Newstead ◽  
Wendy Quinn
Author(s):  
Marcus Gardner ◽  
Carol McKinstry ◽  
Byron Perrin

Purpose: Clinical supervision is an important element of professional support for allied health professionals and contributes to the provision of safe, high quality patient care and health professional wellbeing. Structured clinical supervision frameworks have been recommended to improve access and effectiveness of clinical supervision for allied health professionals by providing practical guidance and increased consistency. However, there is limited evidence relating to the availability and quality of clinical supervision frameworks for allied health. Method: A systematic and critical review was conducted to identify and appraise clinical supervision frameworks for allied health. Included were peer-reviewed studies and grey literature documents, available in full text and written in English. Six databases and government and professional association websites were searched. The AGREE Health Systems Guidance (AGREE-HS) tool was used to appraise framework quality. Three researchers independently reviewed the frameworks and reached consensus on scores through discussion. AGREE-HS scores were analysed descriptively. Results: Twenty-six frameworks were appraised by the AGREE-HS including 7 peer-reviewed studies and 19 grey literature documents. Over half of all frameworks were from Australia, and the profession/s that they related to were most commonly allied health, social work, or psychology. The combined mean of the AGREE-HS final items scores for all studies/documents was 14.5 (SD = 4.0) out of a possible score of 35. Frameworks published in peer-reviewed studies used more robust methods to inform their development than frameworks sourced from the grey literature. In contrast, grey literature frameworks were often more clearly outlined, succinct, practical, and flexible for stakeholders to implement. Conclusions: There are limited published frameworks available for allied health professionals, and the frameworks that do exist are generally of low quality. As a result, many existing frameworks may not provide the practical guidance required to improve clinical supervision practice and optimise the benefits of clinical supervision. It is recommended that future policy relating clinical supervision needs to focus on the development of common, evidence-based allied health clinical supervision frameworks. Future frameworks should be practically orientated and use robust methods and evaluation to inform their development and implementation.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Oliverio ◽  
Monica Nardi ◽  
Maria Luisa Di Gioia ◽  
Paola Costanzo ◽  
Sonia Bonacci ◽  
...  

Semi-synthesis is an effective strategy to obtain both natural and synthetic analogues of the olive secoiridoids, starting from easy accessible natural compounds.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1944-1955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Schwarz ◽  
Elizabeth C. Ward ◽  
Petrea Cornwell ◽  
Anne Coccetti ◽  
Pamela D'Netto ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine (a) the agreement between allied health assistants (AHAs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) when completing dysphagia screening for low-risk referrals and at-risk patients under a delegation model and (b) the operational impact of this delegation model. Method All AHAs worked in the adult acute inpatient settings across three hospitals and completed training and competency evaluation prior to conducting independent screening. Screening (pass/fail) was based on results from pre-screening exclusionary questions in combination with a water swallow test and the Eating Assessment Tool. To examine the agreement of AHAs' decision making with SLPs, AHAs ( n = 7) and SLPs ( n = 8) conducted an independent, simultaneous dysphagia screening on 51 adult inpatients classified as low-risk/at-risk referrals. To examine operational impact, AHAs independently completed screening on 48 low-risk/at-risk patients, with subsequent clinical swallow evaluation conducted by an SLP with patients who failed screening. Results Exact agreement between AHAs and SLPs on overall pass/fail screening criteria for the first 51 patients was 100%. Exact agreement for the two tools was 100% for the Eating Assessment Tool and 96% for the water swallow test. In the operational impact phase ( n = 48), 58% of patients failed AHA screening, with only 10% false positives on subjective SLP assessment and nil identified false negatives. Conclusion AHAs demonstrated the ability to reliably conduct dysphagia screening on a cohort of low-risk patients, with a low rate of false negatives. Data support high level of agreement and positive operational impact of using trained AHAs to perform dysphagia screening in low-risk patients.


2009 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALICIA AULT
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
ALICIA AULT
Keyword(s):  

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 88
Author(s):  
DOUG BRUNK
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Mary Ellen Schneider
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (20) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Alicia Ault
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document