Search

Personhood discourses in dementia care have gained prominence and current care home standards mandate that care should be “person-centred”. However, it is unclear how the personhood of staff is construed within the care relationship. This paper aims to explore how the personhood of paid carers of people with dementia can be understood by focussing on the views and experiences of care home staff. We undertook a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with 25 paid care staff in England, conducted as part of the MARQUE (Managing Agitation and Raising QUality of lifE) study. The authors inductively developed themes around the topic of personhood for staff, contrasting management and care staff perspectives. We found that many care staff are not identified as persons in their own right by their employing institutions, and that there is a general lack of acknowledgment of the moral work of caring that occurs within formal care work. This oversight can reduce the complex relationships of care work to a series of care tasks, challenges care workers’ self-worth and self-efficacy, and impede their efforts to deliver person-centred care. We conclude that care staff status as persons in their own right should be explicitly considered in quality standards and supported by employers’ policies and practices, not simply for their role in preserving the personhood of people with dementia but for their own sense of valued personhood. Enhancing staff personhood may also result in improved care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore, through face to face interviews with a selection of General Dental Practitioners (GDPs), their views and experiences of having used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) within primary care research studies for recording caries. Methods: This qualitative study involved one on one interviews with eight GDP’s who had previously used ICDAS on patients in their dental practices as part of a research study. The participants were selected from among those who had taken part in two clinical studies in the UK using convenient, but purposive sampling. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the data analysis was conducted by thematic analysis. Results: GDP’s indicated their beliefs that ICDAS had an important role in caries prevention but reported four main barriers while using the full (6 caries stages) ICDAS coding system in their practices: lack of simplicity of coding, financial implications and time consumption (in both training and use of ICDAS) and inadequate undergraduate training. An overarching theme identified from the GDPS was the willingness to offer potential solutions to their barriers which might improve the utilisation of the system in primary care. Conclusion: The GDPs experienced common obstacles in using ICDAS in the primary care setting, many of which have relatively straight-forward solutions which they put forward themselves such as: incentivisation, undergraduate-level training in ICDAS for both dentists and nurses and computerized data entry. Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed on how to facilitate the utilisation of the system in dental practice. It is also recommended to explore the influences of wider agencies on influencing primary dental care professionals’ caries management, including appropriate recording of diagnosis and risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Despite poor clinic communication and staff treatment being reported by donors, high rates of overall satisfaction are still reported in surveys. This study will evaluate the importance of communication and interaction between donors and fertility clinic staff in gamete donor care. Methods: We report on 120 egg and sperm donors’ responses to a UK-wide online satisfaction survey. The survey focused on donors’ interactions with fertility clinic staff pre-, during, and post- donation. Basic cross-tabulation was performed on the data using online survey software. Textual data was read and extracts identified, which illustrated and expanded on the findings from the numerical data. Diagrammatic modeling was also utilised to analyse the textual data, with particular focus to relationships between the donors and clinic staff, the main activities within the gamete donation process, and how these activities may affect donor satisfaction with the gamete donation process. Results: Donors expressed concern for the infertile couple and the resulting child; conveyed frustration at not receiving information on the expenses they could claim; felt lost in the system regarding the ease of making clinic appointments, and once made they were routinely not seen on time for these appointments. Donors also negatively commented on aftercare, the location and condition of the donation room, and information on contraception. In addition, Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome was frequently reported, with these egg donors believing that clinic staff were not concerned with their physical or emotional well-being, but were instead disproportionately focused on extracting the eggs. Conclusions: The multifaceted notion of donors highlights the complexity inherent to the gamete donation process, which comprises various aspects of uncertainty in the donation system, and ambiguity in the donation process. Categorising donors as Altruist, Customer, and Patient, conveys the particular importance of staff communication and treatment in donor care. These categories are not mutually exclusive however, in that an individual donor may experience more than one of these perspectives during the course of their gamete donation journey. Finally, there were a number of exemplar cases, where donors reported high satisfaction throughout, and these correlated with them being given a single point of contact at the clinic. Subject to resource constraints, we suggest that this practice should be implemented throughout clinics in the UK, so that donors have access to dedicated clinic staff who not only support them emotionally and physically throughout the gamete donation process, but also ensure that communication is open, clear, timely, and consistent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reducing medication-related harm is a global priority; however, impetus for improvement is impeded as routine medication safety data are seldom available. Therefore, the Medication Safety Thermometer was developed within England’s National Health Service. This study aimed to explore the implementation of the tool into routine practice from users’ perspectives. Method: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposely sampled National Health Service staff from primary and secondary care settings. Interview data were analysed using an initial thematic analysis, and subsequent analysis using Normalisation Process Theory. Results: Secondary care staff understood that the Medication Safety Thermometer’s purpose was to measure medication safety and improvement. However, other uses were reported, such as pinpointing poor practice. Confusion about its purpose existed in primary care, despite further training, suggesting unsuitability of the tool. Decreased engagement was displayed by staff less involved with medication use, who displayed less ownership. Nonetheless, these advocates often lacked support from management and frontline levels, leading to an overall lack of engagement. Many participants reported efforts to drive scale-up of the use of the tool, for example, by securing funding, despite uncertainty around how to use data. Successful improvement was often at ward-level and went unrecognised within the wider organisation. There was mixed feedback regarding the value of the tool, often due to a perceived lack of “capacity”. However, participants demonstrated interest in learning how to use their data and unexpected applications of data were reported. Conclusion: Routine medication safety data collection is complex, but achievable and facilitates improvements. However, collected data must be analysed, understood and used for further work to achieve improvement, which often does not happen. The national roll-out of the tool has accelerated shared learning; however, a number of difficulties still exist, particularly in primary care settings, where a different approach is likely to be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physician associates, known internationally as physician assistants, are a mid-level practitioner, well established in the United States of America but new to the United Kingdom. A small number work in primary care under the supervision of general practitioners, where they most commonly see patients requesting same day appointments for new problems. As an adjunct to larger study, we investigated the quality of the patient consultation of physician associates in comparison to that of general practitioners. Method: We conducted a comparative observational study using video recordings of consultations by volunteer physician associates and general practitioners with consenting patients in single surgery sessions. Recordings were assessed by experienced general practitioners, blinded to the type of the consulting practitioner, using the Leicester Assessment Package. Assessors were asked to comment on the safety of the recorded consultations and to attempt to identify the type of practitioner. Ratings were compared across practitioner type, alongside the number of presenting complaints discussed in each consultation and the number of these which were acute, minor, or regarding a chronic condition. Results: We assessed 62 consultations (41 general practitioner and 21 physician associates) from five general practitioners and four physician associates. All consultations were assessed as safe; but general practitioners were rated higher than PAs in all elements of consultation. The general practitioners were more likely than physician associates to see people with multiple presenting complaints (p<0.0001) and with chronic disease related complaints (p = 0.008). Assessors correctly identified general practitioner consultations but not physician associates. The Leicester Assessment Package had limited inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Conclusions: The physician associate consultations were with a less complex patient group. They were judged as competent and safe, although general practitioner consultations, unsurprisingly, were rated as more competent. Physician associates offer a complementary addition to the medical workforce in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]