28 research outputs found

    Conceptualising dementia crisis and preferences for resolution: A public perspective

    Get PDF
    Background: Crisis intervention services for people with dementia in the United Kingdom are poorly defined with no standardized model of working. This may be due to the lack of a clear conceptualization of dementia crisis, resulting in variation in national service delivery. Methods: This study employed a novel public engagement questionnaire data collection technique with 57 participants to gain an updated perspective on the concept of health-related crisis from the point of view of the public. Results: Analysis revealed crisis as a transformational moment that may arrive unexpectedly but could also be the culmination of a sequence of events. Crisis resolution requires external and expert help, and associated feelings of panic and despair can engender the task of resolution by oneself insurmountable. Conclusions: Participants had clear expectations of crisis intervention services, with initial practical and emotional support to reduce risks, and a person-centered approach with family involvement

    Tensions between policy and practice: A qualitative analysis of decisions regarding compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital.

    Get PDF
    The use of detention for psychiatric treatment is widespread and sometimes necessary. International human rights law requires a legal framework to safeguard the rights to liberty and personal integrity by preventing arbitrary detention. However, research suggests that extra-legal factors may influence decisions to detain. This article presents observational and interview data to describe how decisions to detain are made in practice in one jurisdiction (England and Wales) where a tension between policy and practice has been described. The analysis shows that practitioners mould the law into 'practical criteria' that appear to form a set of operational criteria for identifying cases to which the principle of soft paternalism may be applied. Most practitioners also appear willing, albeit often reluctantly, to depart from their usual reliance on the principle of soft paternalism and authorise detention of people with the capacity to refuse treatment, in order to prevent serious harm. We propose a potential resolution for the tension between policy and practice: two separate legal frameworks to authorise detention, one with a suitable test of capacity, used to enact soft paternalism, and the other to provide legal justification for detention for psychiatric treatment of the small number of people who retain decision-making capacity but nonetheless choose to place others at risk by refusing treatment. This separation of detention powers into two systems, according to the principle that justifies the use of detention would be intellectually coherent, consistent with human rights instruments and, being consistent with the apparent moral sentiments of practitioners, less prone to idiosyncratic interpretations in practice.This study was conducted by EF as a PhD student in the Cambridge Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, funded by a Wellcome Trust PhD Studentship in Biomedical Ethics. AJH and ICHC supervised the work, and MR contributed social science expertise to the working group. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust sponsored the project as a service evaluation study and we thank the participations for their co-operation. The findings, and suggestions for practice, have been fed back to the Trust through internal clinical governance processes. During the preparation of this paper, ICHC and AJH were supported by the NIHR's Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England at Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Elsevier

    The Psychological Impact of Pulmonary Embolism: A mixed methods study

    Get PDF
    Background: Patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE) are reported to experience symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and existential anxiety following their diagnosis. They may also experience negative changes in perspective and hypervigilance of PE symptoms. Objective: The aim of this study was to document the mental and emotional experience associated with PE diagnosis through the lens of PTSD, to better understand the factors involved in psychological distress following receipt of a PE diagnosis. Patients/Methods: This was a mixed-methods study in two parts: (i) measurement of self-reported PTSD symptoms among patients attending thrombosis clinic and (ii) semistructured interviews with patients about their experience of receiving a diagnosis of PE and its psychological aftermath. Results: Of 72 patients who participated in the survey, two met the criteria for a tentative diagnosis of PTSD. The semistructured interviews with 37 patients suggested that around half of respondents experienced some degree of ongoing psychological distress. Those with psychological distress often recalled painful symptoms, recalled diagnosis delivery as stressful, worried about PE recurrence, and had anxieties about stopping their anticoagulant medication. Few patients reported inclination to seek support from professional mental health services. Conclusions: We found ongoing and untreated psychological distress among people who were previously diagnosed with PE

    “Reasonable adjustments” under the UK's Equality Act 2010: An enquiry into the care and treatment to patients with intellectual disabilities in acute hospital settings

    Get PDF
    Objectives To understand the views of qualified medical practitioners regarding “reasonable adjustments” and the quality of the care and treatment provided to adults with intellectual disabilities when admitted to acute hospitals as inpatients. Methods Semi‐structured interviews took place with 14 medical practitioners, seven from each of two acute hospitals, with a thematic analysis of the resulting data. Results All 14 medical practitioners reported problems in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with intellectual disabilities. Most participants attributed these difficulties to communication problems and/or behaviours that, in the context of a hospital ward, were non‐conforming. However, a minority reported that, because they were likely to have multiple comorbid health conditions, patients with intellectual disabilities were more complex. In addition, half of all these respondents reported making little use of “reasonable adjustments” introduced to improve the quality of the care received by this group of patients. Conclusions Medical practitioners should make better use of the “reasonable adjustments” introduced in the UK to address inequities in care and treatment received by patients with intellectual disabilities. However, training should also focus on the biomedical complexities often presented by these men and women

    Improving outcomes in adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability (EpAID) using a nurse-led intervention: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money. METHODS/DESIGN: The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a 'treatment as usual' control or a 'defined epilepsy nurse role' active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants' carers are also undertaken. DISCUSSION: The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013.Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation TrustThis is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1429-

    Training nurses in a competency framework to support adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability: the EpAID cluster RCT.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. SETTING: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults aged 18-65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers' views of participants' epilepsy management. RESULTS: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval -0.554 to 7.307;p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members' perceptions of nurses' management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. LIMITATIONS: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. FUNDING: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programm

    Face-to-face interaction in research interviews.

    No full text
    This thesis is an ethnography of the research interview. It presents an analysis of interviewer-interviewee interaction unencumbered by the methodological and practical concerns of research interviewers, for collecting reliable or valid data. The thesis argues that positivist and interactionist descriptions of the research interview, that are tied to interactional procedures for saving the referential quality of interview talk - by maximising or minimising respondent interviewer interaction - under-theorise the interaction they describe. Thus this thesis suspends any concern with the referential quality of interview data and draws upon a particular reading of the work of Goffman to analyse how participants accomplish a research interview as an intelligible interactional reality organised from within and how participants honour and accommodate each other as ritual selves in the primary roles of interviewee and interviewer. The thesis reviews positivist and interactionist descriptions of the research interview; makes the case for a Goffman style ritual analysis and presents an empirical analysis of qualitative interview talk
    corecore