scholarly journals A framework and toolkit of interventions to enhance reflective learning among health-care professionals: the PEARL mixed-methods study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (32) ◽  
pp. 1-82
Author(s):  
Julian Bion ◽  
Olivia Brookes ◽  
Celia Brown ◽  
Carolyn Tarrant ◽  
Julian Archer ◽  
...  

Background Although most health care is high quality, many patients and members of staff can recall episodes of a lack of empathy, respect or effective communication from health-care staff. In extreme form, this contributes to high-profile organisational failures. Reflective learning is a universally promoted technique for stimulating insight, constructive self-appraisal and empathy; however, its efficacy tends to be assumed rather than proven. The Patient Experience And Reflective Learning (PEARL) project has used patient and staff experience to co-design a novel reflective learning framework that is based on theories of behaviour and learning. Objective To create a toolkit to help health-care staff obtain meaningful feedback to stimulate effective reflective learning that will promote optimal patient-, family- and colleague-focused behaviours. Design A 3-year developmental mixed-methods study with four interlinked workstreams and 12 facilitated co-design meetings. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour framework was used to describe factors influencing the behaviour of reflection. Setting This took place at five acute medical units and three intensive care units in three urban acute hospital trusts in England. Participants Patients and relatives, medical and nursing staff, managers and researchers took part. Data sources Two anonymous surveys, one for patients and one for staff, were developed from existing UK-validated instruments, administered locally and analysed centrally. Ethnographers undertook interviews and observed clinical care and reflective learning activities in the workplace, as well as in the co-design meetings, and fed back their observations in plenary workshops. Main outcome measures Preliminary instruments were rated by participants for effectiveness and feasibility to derive a final set of tools. These are presented in an attractively designed toolbox with multiple sections, including the theoretical background of reflection, mini guides for obtaining meaningful feedback and for reflecting effectively, guides for reflecting ‘in-action’ during daily activities, and a set of resources. Results Local project teams (physicians, nurses, patients, relatives and managers) chaired by a non-executive director found the quarterly reports of feedback from the patient and staff surveys insightful and impactful. Patient satisfaction with care was higher for intensive care units than for acute medical units, which reflects contextual differences, but in both settings quality of communication was the main driver of satisfaction. Ethnographers identified many additional forms of experiential feedback. Those that generated an emotional response were particularly effective as a stimulus for reflection. These sources of data were used to supplement individual participant experiences in the nine local co-design meetings and four workshops to identify barriers to and facilitators of effective reflection, focusing on capability, opportunity and motivation. A logic model was developed combining the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour framework for reflection and theories of learning to link patient and staff experience to changes in downstream behaviours. Participants proposed practical tools and activities to enhance reflection ‘in-action’ and ‘on-action’. These tools were developed iteratively by the local and central project teams. Limitations Paper-based surveys were burdensome to administer and analyse. Conclusions Patients and health-care staff collaborated to produce a novel reflective learning toolkit. Future work The toolkit requires evaluating in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selma Tepehan ◽  
Erdem Özkara ◽  
M. Fatih Yavuz

The aim of this study was to reveal doctors' and nurses' attitudes to euthanasia in intensive care units and surgical, internal medicine and paediatric units in Turkey. A total of 205 doctors and 206 nurses working in several hospitals in Istanbul participated. Data were collected by questionnaire and analysed using SPSS v. 12.0. Significantly higher percentages of doctors (35.3%) and nurses (26.6%) working in intensive care units encountered euthanasia requests than those working in other units. Doctors and nurses caring for terminally ill patients in intensive care units differed considerably in their attitudes to euthanasia and patient rights from other health care staff. Euthanasia should be investigated and put on the agenda for discussion in Turkey.


2020 ◽  
pp. 107755872097258
Author(s):  
Deb Mitchell ◽  
Lisa O’Brien ◽  
Anne Bardoel ◽  
Terry Haines

This longitudinal qualitative study examines staff experience of disinvestment from a service they are accustomed to providing to their patients. It took place alongside a disinvestment trial that measured the impact of the removal of weekend allied health services from acute wards at two hospitals. Data were gathered from repeated interviews and focus groups with 450 health care staff. We developed a grounded theory, which explains changes in staff perceptions over time and the key modifying factors. Staff appeared to experience disinvestment as loss; a key difference to other operational changes. Early staff experiences of disinvestment were primarily negative, but evolved with time and change-management strategies such as the provision of data, clear and persistent communication approaches, and forums where the big picture context of the disinvestment was robustly discussed. These allowed the disinvestment trial to be successfully implemented at two health services, with high compliance with the research protocol.


BMC Nursing ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sedighe Ghobadian ◽  
Mansour Zahiri ◽  
Behnaz Dindamal ◽  
Hossein Dargahi ◽  
Farzad Faraji-Khiavi

Abstract Background Clinical errors are one of the challenges of health care in different countries, and obtaining accurate statistics regarding clinical errors in most countries is a difficult process which varies from one study to another. The current study was conducted to identify barriers to reporting clinical errors in the operating theatre and the intensive care unit of a university hospital. Methods This qualitative study was conducted in the operating theatre and intensive care unit of a university hospital. Data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews with health care staff, senior doctors, and surgical assistants. Data analysis was carried out through listening to the recorded interviews and developing transcripts of the interviews. Meaning units were identified and codified based on the type of discussion. Then, codes which had a common concept were grouped under one category. Finally, the codes and designated categories were analysed, discussed and confirmed by a panel of four experts of qualitative content analysis, and the main existing problems were identified and derived. Results Barriers to reporting clinical errors were extracted in two themes: individual problems and organizational problems. Individual problems included 4 categories and 12 codes and organizational problems included 6 categories and 17 codes. The results showed that in the majority of cases, nurses expressed their desire to change the current prevailing attitudes in the workplace while doctors expected the officials to implement reform policies regarding clinical errors in university hospitals. Conclusion In order to alleviate the barriers to reporting clinical errors, both individual and organizational problems should be addressed and resolved. At an individual level, training nursing and medical teams on error recognition is recommended. In order to solve organizational problems, on the other hand, the process of reporting clinical errors should be improved as far as the nursing team is concerned, but when it comes to the medical team, addressing legal loopholes should be given full consideration.


2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 2625-2636
Author(s):  
Mohamad-Hani Temsah ◽  
Noura Abouammoh ◽  
Ayman Al-Eyadhy ◽  
Yazed AlRuthia ◽  
Marwah Hassounah ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document