Plugging a hole and lightening the burden: A process evaluation of a practice education team

Aim: To investigate the perceptions of clinical and senior managers about the role of Practice Educators employed in one acute hospital in the UK. Background: Producing nurses who are fit for practice, purpose and academic award is a key issue for nurse education partnership providers in the UK. Various new models for practice learning support structures and new roles within health care institutions have been established. To sustain funding and policy support for these models, there is a need for evaluation research. Design: A process evaluation methodology was employed to determine the current value of a practice education team and to provide information to guide future direction. Methods: Data were collected through semi-structured telephone interviews using a previously designed schedule. All senior nurse managers (N=5) and a purposive sample of clinical managers (n=13) who had personal experience of and perceptions about the role of practice educators provided the data. Interview notes were transcribed, coded and a thematic framework devised to present the results. Results: A number of key themes emerged including: qualities needed for being a successful practice educator; visibility and presence of practice educators; providing a link with the university; ‘plugging a hole’ in supporting learning needs; providing relief to practitioners in dealing with ‘the burden of students’; alleviating the ‘plight of students’; and effects on student attrition. Conclusions: Findings provided evidence for the continued funding of the practice educator role with improvements to be made in dealing with stakeholder expectations and outcomes. Relevance to clinical practice: In the UK, there still remain concerns about the fitness for practice of newly registered nurses, prompting a recent national consultation by the professional regulating body. Despite fiscal pressures, recommendations for further strengthening of all systems that will support the quality of practice learning may continue to sustain practice learning support roles

Rasch scaling procedures for informing development of a valid Fetal Surveillance Education Program multiple-choice assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is widely recognised that deficiencies in fetal surveillance practice continue to contribute significantly to the burden of adverse outcomes. This has prompted the development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and an associated Fetal Surveillance Education Program to deliver the associated learning. This article describes initial steps in the validation of a corresponding multiple-choice assessment of the relevant educational outcomes through a combination of item response modelling and expert judgement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Rasch item response model was employed for item and test analysis and to empirically derive the substantive interpretation of the assessment variable. This interpretation was then compared to the hierarchy of competencies specified a priori by a team of eight subject-matter experts. Classical Test Theory analyses were also conducted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A high level of agreement between the hypothesised and derived variable provided evidence of construct validity. Item and test indices from Rasch analysis and Classical Test Theory analysis suggested that the current test form was of moderate quality. However, the analyses made clear the required steps for establishing a valid assessment of sufficient psychometric quality. These steps included: increasing the number of items from 40 to 50 in the first instance, reviewing ineffective items, targeting new items to specific content and difficulty gaps, and formalising the assessment blueprint in light of empirical information relating item structure to item difficulty.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The application of the Rasch model for criterion-referenced assessment validation with an expert stakeholder group is herein described. Recommendations for subsequent item and test construction are also outlined in this article.</p

Financing intersectoral action for health: a systematic review of co-financing models.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the social and other non-biological determinants of health largely depends on policies and programmes implemented outside the health sector. While there is growing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that tackle these upstream determinants, the health sector does not typically prioritise them. From a health perspective, they may not be cost-effective because their non-health outcomes tend to be ignored. Non-health sectors may, in turn, undervalue interventions with important co-benefits for population health, given their focus on their own sectoral objectives. The societal value of win-win interventions with impacts on multiple development goals may, therefore, be under-valued and under-resourced, as a result of siloed resource allocation mechanisms. Pooling budgets across sectors could ensure the total multi-sectoral value of these interventions is captured, and sectors' shared goals are achieved more efficiently. Under such a co-financing approach, the cost of interventions with multi-sectoral outcomes would be shared by benefiting sectors, stimulating mutually beneficial cross-sectoral investments. Leveraging funding in other sectors could off-set flat-lining global development assistance for health and optimise public spending. Although there have been experiments with such cross-sectoral co-financing in several settings, there has been limited analysis to examine these models, their performance and their institutional feasibility. AIM: This study aimed to identify and characterise cross-sectoral co-financing models, their operational modalities, effectiveness, and institutional enablers and barriers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if data was provided on interventions funded across two or more sectors, or multiple budgets. Extracted data were categorised and qualitatively coded. RESULTS: Of 2751 publications screened, 81 cases of co-financing were identified. Most were from high-income countries (93%), but six innovative models were found in Uganda, Brazil, El Salvador, Mozambique, Zambia, and Kenya that also included non-public and international payers. The highest number of cases involved the health (93%), social care (64%) and education (22%) sectors. Co-financing models were most often implemented with the intention of integrating services across sectors for defined target populations, although models were also found aimed at health promotion activities outside the health sector and cross-sectoral financial rewards. Interventions were either implemented and governed by a single sector or delivered in an integrated manner with cross-sectoral accountability. Resource constraints and political relevance emerged as key enablers of co-financing, while lack of clarity around the roles of different sectoral players and the objectives of the pooling were found to be barriers to success. Although rigorous impact or economic evaluations were scarce, positive process measures were frequently reported with some evidence suggesting co-financing contributed to improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: Co-financing remains in an exploratory phase, with diverse models having been implemented across sectors and settings. By incentivising intersectoral action on structural inequities and barriers to health interventions, such a novel financing mechanism could contribute to more effective engagement of non-health sectors; to efficiency gains in the financing of universal health coverage; and to simultaneously achieving health and other well-being related sustainable development goals