Search

There is an acknowledged professional practice gap regarding sexuality and sexual health related needs within mental health settings in Australia and internationally. Yet little is known about how clinicians can be best supported or enabled to improve sexuality‐related practice, from their own perspective. This is important, given the sensitive and complex nature of sexuality and sexual health within the context of mental distress and service provision. This article reports a follow‐up study, where mental health clinicians who participated in an initial study were invited to reflect on and discuss the (finalized) results and recommendations generated. The aim was to generate insights into the tools, strategies, and approaches participants felt would best equip and support clinicians to better incorporate sexuality and sexual health into their work. Six clinicians from three disciplines (mental health nursing, psychology, and psychiatry) participated in in‐depth interviews to reflect on a plain language summary of the initial study. Three interconnected themes were generated via reflexive thematic analysis: (1) access to knowledge and information; (2) support from peers, senior colleagues, and workplaces; and (3) enacting a focus on sexuality‐related care. These findings provide valuable insights into how clinicians may want to be supported in relation to (improving) their sexuality‐related practice. The analysis also demonstrates the importance of a multifaceted approach to improving sexuality‐related care in mental health and other health settings. This knowledge will contribute to directing future research and development of interventions, tools, strategies, or other approaches to this end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To investigate nursing and allied health professional perceptions of the interrelationship between avoidable hospital readmissions and fundamental care delivery. Design: A qualitative, exploratory study using a critical realist approach. Method: One‐to‐one semi‐structured interviews with 14 nursing and allied health professionals conducted between May and September 2019. Results: Several tensions and contradictions were identified in the data, which demonstrated clinicians' perceptions about the priority of both fundamental care and two avoidable readmission conditions (aspiration pneumonia and constipation). These tensions are illustrated in two major themes: Avoidable versus inevitable; and everyone versus no one. The first theme demonstrates clinicians' perceptions that readmissions for aspiration pneumonia and constipation are not common, despite acknowledging that they generally lacked knowledge on readmission rates; and that these conditions may not be preventable in acute settings. The second theme demonstrates clinicians' perception that preventing readmissions is everyone's responsibility, however, this was coupled with a lack of articulation around how this multidisciplinary approach could be achieved, leading to a distinct lack of agency for care delivery. Conclusion: Articulating the tensions described in the results provides vital knowledge for understanding how clinicians may respond to initiatives designed to reduce avoidable readmissions. Avoidable hospital readmissions may be usefully understood as a wicked problem: one that is complex and requires adaptive, not linear, solutions. Wicked problems pose a challenge for leaders and managers in healthcare because top‐down, hierarchical strategies are unlikely to be successful. Effective prevention of avoidable readmissions requires leaders to enable facilitator‐led change through relational leadership strategies. Impact Avoidable hospital readmissions are a global problem increasingly addressed via funding changes and the introduction of penalties to hospitals. This study provides insights on clinicians' perspectives of avoidable hospital readmissions and their prevention, demonstrating the complexity of this challenge and the need for healthcare leaders to enable individual and organizational readiness for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research seeking to understand and improve sexuality-related practice in mental health settings has paid little attention to the institutional context in which clinicians' practice is embedded. Through a social constructionist lens, we used thematic analysis to examine how 22 Australian mental health clinicians implicated the wider institutional context when discussing and making sense of sexuality-related silence within their work. Interviews were part of a study exploring participants' perceptions of sexuality and sexual health in their work more generally. Broader silences that shaped and reinforced participants' perceptions and practice choices were situated in professional education; workplace cultures; and the tools, procedures and policies that directed clinical practice. We argue that sexuality-related silence in mental health settings is located in the institutional context in which clinicians learn and work, and discuss how orienting to this broader context will benefit research and interventions to improve sexuality-related practice across health settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sexuality, relationships, and intimacy are integral parts of many peoples' lives, not negated by mental distress and illness. Yet typically, these needs are not addressed adequately in mental health settings. In‐depth interviews were conducted with mental health clinicians with an aim of exploring their perceptions and understandings of sexuality and sexual concerns within mental health settings. Participants were 22 mental health nurses, psychologists, and psychiatrists working with people across a range of settings in four Australian cities. Sexuality or aspects of this were often not addressed in clinical practice, and this was common across participants' accounts. A critical thematic analysis was conducted to explore how participants made sense of or explained this silence in relation to sexuality. Two key themes were 'Sexuality is hard to talk about' and 'Sexuality is a "peripheral issue"'. In positioning sexuality as a peripheral issue, participants drew on three key explanations (sub‐themes): that sexuality rarely 'comes up', that it is not pragmatic to address sexuality, and that addressing sexuality is not part of participants' roles or skill sets. A third theme captured the contrasting perception that 'Sexuality could be better addressed' in mental health settings. This analysis indicates that, beyond anticipated embarrassment, mental health clinicians from three disciplines account for omissions of sexuality from clinical practice in similar ways. Moreover, these accounts serve to peripheralize sexuality in mental health settings. We consider these results within the context of espoused holistic and recovery‐oriented principles in mental health settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]