Search

Despite a history of critique, concentrated discussion and improved assessment processes, neglect continues to be a major challenge for child protection services. This paper draws on findings from a government‐commissioned analysis of 'serious case reviews' (SCRs) in England, arising from incidents of serious child abuse in 2017–2019. There were 235 cases, for which 166 final reports were available. Alongside a quantitative analysis of the whole cohort, we undertook an in‐depth qualitative analysis of 12 cases involving neglect. A key challenge in responding to neglect in its different forms is that it can be so widespread amongst families that practitioners no longer notice its severity or chronicity – it becomes normalised. In this paper we explore two dimensions of the 'paradox of neglect' where it seems to be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. The first is that neglect is so closely bound up with the prevalence of poverty that little action is taken to address it. The second is that the overwhelming nature of neglect can blind practitioners to other forms of maltreatment that may also be present within a family. Practitioners, now more than ever, need to recognise the dimensions of this paradox to protect children from neglect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Alceu: Revista de Comunicação, Cultura e Política is the property of Faculdades Catolicas, Associacao sem fins lucrativos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Young people moving from adolescent secure hospitals to adult care present with multiple and complex needs which often remain unmet during transition periods. This paper delineates the process of developing and co‐producing the moving forward intervention (MFi), which aims to address the psychosocial needs of transitioning youth who have limited access to well‐researched and tailored service provisions. Method: An extensive search of the relevant literature was conducted to generate themes and guide the co‐production phase. Fourteen Advisory Group Meetings were held virtually during COVID‐19 to design the MFi module content with 17 keyworkers, 2 parents and 13 young people aged 17–18 years across six adolescent secure hospitals in England. Thematic analysis was used to reflect on the field notes discussed in the Advisory Groups. Results: Co‐produced themes from the literature and the Advisory Groups informed the development of the proposed intervention. Three overarching themes pertinent to expectations in adult services, improving communication gaps between services and facilitating the letting go period emerged from the co‐production phase. It was suggested the MFi is co‐delivered by a peer with lived experience to build trust and create hopefulness among young people. The importance of promoting graded transitions through standardised procedures was highlighted. Conclusions: The current findings promote evidence‐based initiatives and build robust practice frameworks that inform treatment and policy guidelines. The young people, parents and keyworkers found the MFi supportive and valued the co‐production experience. As such, co‐production has been a vital tool in promoting patient engagement and empowerment, and reducing service inequalities, especially in adolescent secure hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives: We sought to gain an understanding of the patient experience during their hospital stay for COVID‐19, and the impact of COVID‐19 on quality of life post discharge. Background: Symptoms of COVID‐19 include a persistent cough, dyspnoea and fatigue. Individuals with comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease have a higher risk of contracting COVID‐19 and approximately 20% of those diagnosed with COVID‐19 are admitted to hospital. Following discharge from hospital, 40% of patients report a worsened quality of life and up to 87% of those discharged from hospital have experienced 'long COVID'. Design: A qualitative design was used to understand patient experience of hospitalisation following a diagnosis of COVID‐19, and their experiences following discharge from hospital. Methods: Ten patients with a previous diagnosis of COVID‐19 took part in semi‐structured interviews regarding their experiences of hospitalisation and the impact on quality of life post‐discharge. Results: The results identified three key themes from the interviews: communication and the inpatient experience, symptoms following discharge and regaining independence. Patients discussed their experience of hospitalisation and how this continued to impact their emotional well‐being post‐discharge. However, patients appeared to push themselves physically to improve their health, despite continued COVID‐19 symptoms. Conclusion: Patients hospitalised following a diagnosis of COVID‐19 experienced psychological distress during their hospital stay, as well as 3‐months post‐discharge. We suggest the use of psychosocial interventions to support patients post‐discharge. Relevance to Clinical Practice: The results of this study provide a greater understanding of the patient experience during their hospital stay, which can support nursing staff practice. Additionally, the study provides in depth knowledge of personal experiences of patients diagnosed with COVID‐19 and the impact following hospital discharge. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient's took part in semi‐structured interviews via telephone to support the aims and objectives of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Calgary-Cambridge Model (C-CM), developed by Kurtz and Silverman in 1996, is a communication tool developed for doctors. Since its publication, it has been adopted by various healthcare professionals; however, no previous research has been identified that evaluates its use in paramedic practice. This study aims to explore the experience of students and newly qualified paramedics (NQPs) applying the C-CM in practice, and establish their experiences and perceptions of its suitability as a communication tool in the pre-hospital environment. Methods: This MSc research project, conducted in April–May 2021, applied qualitative methods with thematic analysis to written reflections and semi-structured interview transcripts discussing the implementation of C-CM in paramedic practice. A convenience-quota sample of 11 participants, consisting of third-year paramedic students and recent NQPs, were recruited. This research is reported using Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) reporting guidelines. Results: Eleven participants were recruited in total; nine consented to reflective writing analysis and interviews, two consented to writing analysis only. Analysis of the writing samples allowed for a deductive approach to the interview plan. Participants consisted of seven males and four females. All eleven participants (ten British and one Indian) spoke English as a first language. Ages ranged from 18 to 59 years. Career status was 46.2% third-year students and 53.8% NQPs. Four major themes were identified: barriers to implementation of the C-CM in practice; impact of C-CM on paramedic practice; C-CM as a teaching and learning tool in paramedic practice; and adaptation of C-CM for paramedic practice. Conclusions: Participants suggested that implementation of C-CM leads to improved structure and shared decision-making; however, adaptions to make it more paramedic-focused would be welcomed. The diversity of patients and their preferences can make its implementation challenging, and the negative feedback received from experienced ambulance staff was a significant concern to participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Personalised Care and Support Planning (PCSP) replaces conventional annual reviews for people with long-term conditions. It is designed to help healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients engage in conversations as equals and collaboratively plan actions oriented to each patient's priorities, alongside biomedical concerns. Little is known about how the shift to remote consulting initiated with COVID-19 restrictions has impacted PCSP. Aim: To investigate HCPs' experiences of conducting PCSP conversations remotely and consider implications for the fulfilment of PCSP ambitions as remote consulting continues beyond COVID-19 restrictions. Methods: 19 semi-structured interviews with HCPs in England and Scotland; interpretive analysis. Results: HCPs' accounts made clear that COVID-19 restrictions impacted multiple aspects of PCSP delivery, not just the mode of conversation. Broader disruption to general practice systems for gathering and sharing information ahead of PCSP conversations, and moves to 'wide window' appointment times, made it harder for patients to be prepared for PCSP conversations. This constrained scope to achieve PCSP ambitions even with the best professional communication skills. Most remote PCSP conversations were conducted by telephone. In the absence of visual communication with patients, it was sometimes harder to achieve the ambitions of PCSP conversations, including to balance patient and professional agendas, fulfil key planning activities, and foster a relational ethos of equal, collaborative partnership. The challenges were particularly severe when working with new patients and people with complex clinical and social problems. Although options for telephone appointments now offer valued flexibility, sustained experience of struggling to achieve PCSP ambitions via remote consulting led some HCPs to lower their standards for judging a "good" PCSP conversation, and to diminished professional satisfaction. Conclusions: There are significant challenges to fulfilling the ambitions of PCSP via telephone, especially when preparatory support is limited. This study provides grounds for scepticism about how compatible telephone appointments can be with this person-centred model of working, especially for people who are socially disadvantaged and live with complex health conditions. These threats to the provision of person-centred support for people with long-term conditions warrant careful attention going forward if the PCSP model and its benefits are to be sustained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why you should read this article: • To gain insight into the views and perceptions of nurses regarding digital technology and digital skills • To recognise that using digital technology is likely to have both advantages and drawbacks for patient care • To acknowledge the need for nurses to receive appropriate and accessible digital literacy training. Background: Digital technology has an increasing role in healthcare, but staff lack opportunities to develop their digital skills and there is a lack of research on education and training in digital technology for staff. Aim: To explore nurses' perceptions of the use of digital technology in their practice and to identify the digital skills required by newly registered nurses to work in a digitally enabled environment. Method: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted on an online communication platform with nine participants – four newly registered nurses and five senior nurses working in clinical and/or management roles. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Findings: Several barriers and facilitators to the use of digital technology were identified, including around infrastructure, time, skills, training, support, leadership, familiarity and confidence. The use of digital technology may enhance care consistency and increase patient autonomy, but it may also erode nurse-patient relationships. Conclusion: Digital technology can enhance patient care but organisational barriers, notably in relation to digital literacy training, need to be addressed for nurses to fully adopt it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older people with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) (MLTC-M) experience difficulties accessing and interacting with health and care services. Breakdowns in communication between patients and staff can threaten patient safety. To improve communication and reduce risks to patient safety in primary care, we developed an intervention: Safer Patients Empowered to Engage and Communicate about Health (SPEECH). SPEECH comprises a booklet for patients and an associated guide for staff. The booklet is designed to provide patients with information about staff and services, skills to prepare and explain, and confidence to speak up and ask. Methods: A single-arm mixed methods feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. General practices in the North West of England were recruited. Participating practices invited patients aged 65+ with MLTC-M who had an appointment scheduled during the study period. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires at baseline and follow-up (four to eight weeks after being sent the patient booklet), including the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure, Empowerment Scale, Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire, and Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety. Staff completed questionnaires at the end of the study period. A sub-sample of patients and staff were interviewed about the study processes and intervention. Patients and the public were involved in all aspects of the study, from generation of the initial idea to interpretation of findings. Results: Our target of four general practices were recruited within 50 days of the study information being sent out. A fifth practice was recruited later to boost patient recruitment. We received expressions of interest from 55 patients (approx. 12% of those invited). Our target of 40 patient participants completed baseline questionnaires and were sent the SPEECH booklet. Of these, 38 (95%) completed follow-up. Patients found the intervention and study processes acceptable, and staff found the intervention acceptable and feasible to deliver. Conclusions: Our findings suggest the intervention is acceptable, and it would be feasible to deliver a trial to assess effectiveness. Prior to further evaluation, study processes and the intervention will be updated to incorporate suggestions from participants. Trial registration: The study was registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN13196605: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN13196605). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]