Search

In this paper, we use a UK case study to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the mental health (emotional, psychological, social wellbeing) of farmers. We outline the drivers of poor farming mental health, the manifold impacts of the pandemic at a time of policy and environmental change, and identify lessons that can be learned to develop resilience in farming communities against future shocks. We undertook a survey answered by 207 farmers across the UK, focusing on drivers of poor mental health and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also conducted 22 in-depth interviews with individuals in England, Scotland and Wales who provide mental health support to farmers. These explored how and why the COVID-19 pandemic affected the mental health of farmers. These interviews were supplemented by 93 survey responses from a similar group of support providers (UK-wide). We found that the pandemic exacerbated underlying drivers of poor mental health and wellbeing in farming communities. 67% of farmers surveyed reported feeling more stressed, 63% felt more anxious, 38% felt more depressed, and 12% felt more suicidal. The primary drivers of poor mental health identified by farmers during the pandemic included decreased social contact and loneliness, issues with the general public on private land, and moving online for social events. Support providers also highlighted relationship and financial issues, illness, and government inspections as drivers of poor mental health. Some farmers, conversely, outlined positive impacts of the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is just one of many potential stressors associated with poor farming mental health and its impacts are likely to be long-lasting and delayed. Multiple stressors affecting farmers at the same time can create a tipping point. Therefore, there is a need for long-term support and ongoing evaluation of the drivers of poor mental health in farming families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Deaths in care homes and "at home" are anticipated to account for a third of UK deaths by 2040. Currently, palliative and end of life care are not part of statutory training in care homes. Reflective practice is a tool that can facilitate practice‐based learning and support. Following a feasibly study to test "online" supportive conversations and reflection sessions (OSCaRS) to support care home staff in relation to death/dying during the first months of the COVID pandemic, a one‐year practice development follow‐up project was undertaken with the aim to create a team of NHS/specialist palliative care (SPC)‐based facilitators to lead and support OSCaRS provision in up to 50 care homes in one region in Scotland—the focus of this paper. Methods: Forty care home managers attended an on‐line session explaining the project, with a similar session held for 19 NHS/SPC‐based nurses external to care homes. Those interested in facilitating OSCaRS then attended three education sessions. Data collected: records of all activities; reflective notes on OSCaRS organised/delivered; a summary of each OSCaRS reflection/learning points; final interviews with NHS/SPC trainee facilitators. Results: A total of 19 NHS/SPC facilitators delivered one or more OSCaRS in 22 participating care homes. However, as of January 2022 only six trained facilitators remained active. Out of the 158 OSCaRS arranged, 96 took place with a total of 262 staff attending. There were three important aspects that emerged: the role, remit, and resources of NHS/SPC supporting OSCaRS; requirements within care homes for establishing OSCaRS; and, the practice‐based learning topics discussed at each OSCaRS. Conclusion: Attempts to establish a team of NHS/SPC facilitators to lead OSCaRS highlights that end of life care education in care homes does not clearly fall within the contractual remit of either group or risks being missed due to more pressing priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID‐19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. Method: Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank‐ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID‐19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. Results: A four‐factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. Conclusion: The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID‐19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of the statement set, which is rank‐ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID‐19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supported self-management (SSM) is an important part of adapting to life after stroke however it is a complex concept. It is unclear what SSM in stroke consists of or how stroke survivors, families, and clinicians can most effectively work together to support person-centred self-management. In this study, we aimed to explore what was most important in making SSM work in community stroke rehabilitation. We conducted a Q-methodology study with stroke survivors (n = 20), community-based stroke clinicians (n = 20), and team managers (n = 8) across four health boards in Scotland, United Kingdom. Participants ranked 32 statements according to their importance in making SSM work. Factor analysis was used to identify shared viewpoints. We identified four viewpoints: (i) A person-centred approach to build self-confidence and self-worth; (ii) Feeling heard, understood, and supported by everybody; (iii) Preparation of appropriate resources; and (iv) Right thing, right place, right time for the individual. Important across all viewpoints were: a trusting supportive relationship; working in partnership; focusing on meaningful goals; and building self-confidence. Differing views exist on what is most important in SSM. These views could be used to inform quality improvement strategies to support the delivery of SSM that considers the preferences of stroke survivors. Clinicians should be aware of their own viewpoint of supported self-management and consider how their perspective may differ from stroke survivors' and colleagues' perspectives of what's important to support self-management. Working in partnership with stroke survivors plus developing a trusting and supportive relationship with them are core components of supporting self-management in the longer term after stroke. Building a sense of self-worth and self-confidence, a focus on meaningful goals, training and support for staff, and tailoring support to people's needs at the right time are important considerations for supporting longer-term engagement in self-management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The wellbeing of care home staff and the need to support them at work was highlighted with devastating clarity by the COVID pandemic. This small study explores what online and at work wellbeing resources were available to frontline care home workers during the first wave of the pandemic. A mixed methods study was undertaken May and July 2020. A multi-disciplinary team undertook a rapid review of online wellbeing information and resources relevant specifically to the care home sector and its non-nurse staff. Qualitative data comprised of digital recordings of semi-structured interviews with six care home managers of five care homes, and an online survey sent to 55 Scottish care homes with a response rate of 18%. Five overarching lessons were identified from the data. The first two ('managing information overload' and 'medium not appropriate for the message') relate to the awareness and use of the online wellbeing resources by frontline care workers. Three others ('visible and supportive leadership', 'building team camaraderie' and 'maintaining a focus on wellbeing beyond a crisis response') highlight the in-house, practice-based issues of supporting the wellbeing of staff. Although small, the findings from this study are of relevance and use by those in the UK and beyond working develop and sustain more effective ways to support and retain of this vital workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To evaluate and explore mental health nurses' responses to and experience of an educational intervention to improve attitudes towards people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Report findings are concordant with relevant EQUATOR guidelines (STROBE and COREQ). Background: Attitudes towards people with a diagnosis of BPD are poorer than for people with other diagnoses. There is limited evidence about what might improve this situation. One intervention with reportedly good effect uses an underlying biosocial model of BPD. No previous intervention has been co‐produced with an expert by experience. We developed and delivered a 1‐day intervention comprising these elements. Design: A mixed‐methods design was used comprising prospective within‐subjects cohort intervention and qualitative elements. Participants were mental health nursing staff working in inpatient and community settings in one NHS Board in Scotland, UK. Methods: Measurement of cognitive and emotional attitudes to people with a diagnosis of BPD at pre‐ and postintervention (N = 28) and at 4‐month follow‐up. Focus groups were used to explore participants' experiences of the intervention (N = 11). Results: Quantitative evaluation revealed some sustained changes consistent with expected attitudinal gains in relation to the perceived treatment characteristics of this group, the perception of their suicidal tendencies and negative attitudes in general. Qualitative findings revealed some hostility towards the underpinning biosocial model and positive appreciation for the involvement of an expert by experience. Conclusions: Sustained benefits of an educational intervention for people working with people diagnosed with BPD in some but not all areas. Participants provided contrasting messages about what they think will be useful. Relevance to clinical practice: The study provides further evidence for incorporation of a biosocial model into staff training as well as the benefits of expert by experience co‐production. Mental health nurses, however, believe that more well‐resourced services are the key to improving care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]