Search

Aims and objectives This systematic review provides an overview of the literature published on Releasing Time to Care: The Productive Ward between 2005 and June 2011. Background Releasing Time to Care: The Productive Ward programme was developed by the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement and launched in England in 2007. The programme comprises thirteen modules that aim to increase time for direct patient care, improve the patient and staff experience and make changes to the ward environment to improve efficiency. Design A systematic literature review. Methods The terms ' Releasing Time to Care' and ' Productive Ward' were applied to key healthcare databases; CINAHL, Medline, Science Direct, Pro Quest, Health Business Elite, British Nursing Index, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium and PsychInfo. All papers were read and subject to a quality assessment. Results The literature search identified 95 unique sources. A lack of research on The Productive Ward programme meant it was necessary to include non-empirical literature. In total, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. Seven key themes were identified: the patient and staff experience, direct care time, patient safety, financial impact, embedding and sustainability, executive support and leadership, and common barriers and determinants of success. It also highlighted areas that require further exploration such as long-term sustainability of the programme and consistent data measurement between organisations. Conclusion The review tentatively reports how The Productive Ward programme has been used to transform nursing practice for the benefit of patients and frontline staff, and how it resulted in cost savings. The literature review identified a potential positive results bias in the current literature whereby favourable outcomes were reported. Relevance to clinical practice This paper summarises the types of evidence and current literature on The Productive Ward providing a reference for frontline staff implementing the programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research goals were to obtain an understanding of who the users of e‐books in the NHS are, what they are using e‐books for, and when and how they use them. This article presents the methodology used and the findings from the research. It also explores the outputs and next steps from the research, both for the individual countries and collectively. The Five Nations group, (library leads in England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland and Wales) commissioned research into healthcare staff use and non‐use of e‐books to understand the behaviours, needs and expectations of healthcare staff and to identify shared challenges around e‐books to inform policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why you should read this article: • To learn about the differences between psychiatric intensive care, low secure and locked rehabilitation units • To understand how service provision in psychiatric intensive care, low secure and locked rehabilitation units has changed since 2006 • To gather information on the types of interventions offered by the different psychiatric intensive care facilities Psychiatric intensive care can take place in a variety of settings, including psychiatric intensive care units (PICUs), low secure units (LSUs) and locked rehabilitation units (LRUs). These units have a range of referral, admission and discharge care pathways, staffing profiles and core interventions. The aim of this service evaluation was to compare present provision in PICUs and LSUs with results from the first national survey of PICUs and LSUs in 2006. The service evaluation also aimed to define the role of LRUs. The authors used a cross-sectional, 'census day' questionnaire with six-month follow-up design. Overall, 111 NHS units participated in the evaluation. Results included that PICUs were smaller and usually had a mixed-sex distribution of service users; LSUs mostly comprised single-sex facilities; and LRUs mostly comprised single-sex units with a significantly longer mean length of stay than the other types of unit. PICUs primarily cared for service users exhibiting acute behavioural disturbance, first-episode psychosis or psychotic crisis and, compared with the other types of unit, more often used high-dose medication and electroconvulsive therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A large number of people who experience a stroke are affected by dysarthria. This may be in isolation or in association with aphasia and/or dysphagia. Despite evidence highlighting the psychological and social impact of having post-stroke dysarthria and a number of clinical guidelines that make recommendations for appropriate management, little is known currently about UK service delivery issues relating to speech and language therapy (SLT) assessment and treatment for this group. Such evidence is necessary in order to plan, develop and research services for people with post-stroke dysarthria. Aims To gain an overview of SLT practices in the management of people with dysarthria after stroke in the UK. Methods & Procedures SLTs in the UK were asked to complete an online survey addressing referral patterns, caseload profiles, and their assessment and intervention methods for post-stroke dysarthria. In the absence of a national register of clinicians working with people with acquired dysarthria, a snowballing method was used to facilitate participant recruitment. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics. Outcomes & Results A total of 146 SLTs responded. The majority were employed by the National Health Service (NHS). Most patients were referred within 1 week post-stroke. Almost half the respondents did not regularly use formal assessments and the use of instrumentation was rare, including the use of video recording. The focus of therapy for mild, moderate and severe dysarthria did not differ significantly for clinicians. A little under half the respondents endorsed non-verbal oral exercises in rehabilitation. The survey demonstrated some appreciation of the centrality of regular intensive practice to effect change, but this was in a minority. Conclusions & Implications Through this research it became clear that basic information regarding post-stroke dysarthria incidence, prevalence and core demographics is currently unavailable. More embedded NHS SLT reporting systems would make a significant contribution to this area. A more in-depth examination is required of the natural history of dysarthria over the months and years following stroke, of SLT practices in relation to post-stroke dysarthria, with investigations to understand more fully the choices SLTs make and how this relates to available evidence to support their clinical decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]