Peer group clinical supervision: Qualitative perspectives from nurse supervisees, managers, and supervisors

Background: Clinical supervision helps promote practitioners' personal and professional development through fostering a supportive relationship and working alliance. Peer group clinical supervision is a form of clinical supervision whereby two or more nurses engage in a supervision process to improve their professional practice and provide quality care. Aim: To explore the experiences of supervision from the perspectives of nurse supervisees, their direct line managers, and clinical supervisors. Methods: A qualitative descriptive pragmatic design was used. Individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with 27 participants. Data were analysed using deductive content analysis. Findings: Three main categories were identified: Perceived benefits of peer group clinical supervision, challenges faced during peer group clinical supervision, and enhancements for future peer group clinical supervision sessions. Stress reduction, problem solving, managing change, and improved prioritisation were amongst the benefits gained from clinical supervision. Challenges included competing work demands, staffing issues, and the duration, location, and process of supervision. Participants recommended adding time to the allocated supervision hour, raising awareness of peer group clinical supervision in advance, and training expert supervisors. Discussion: The space for peer group clinical supervision needs to be primed beforehand through providing and ensuring protected time, the availability of experienced supervisors, and raising key stakeholders' awareness of what supervision entails. Stress caused by competing work demands and the fear of losing momentum need to be considered by services in advance. Conclusion: Findings support the planning, delivery, and evaluation of future peer group clinical supervision sessions, while addressing challenges identified by study participants

Monitoring the EU protected Geomalacus maculosus (Kerry Slug): what are the factors affecting catch returns in open and forested habitats?

Geomalacus maculosus is a slug species protected under EU law with a distribution limited to the west of Ireland and north-west Iberia. The species, originally thought to be limited within Ireland to deciduous woodland and peatland, has been found in a number of commercial conifer plantations since 2010. While forest managers are now required to incorporate the protection of the species where it is present, no clear species monitoring protocols are currently available. This study examines the efficacy of De Sangosse refuge traps across three habitats frequently associated with commercial forest plantations in Ireland and compares them with hand searching, a commonly used method for slug monitoring. Catch data during different seasons and under different weather conditions are also presented. Results indicate that autumn is the optimal time for sampling G. maculosus but avoiding extremes of hot or cold weather. While refuge traps placed at 1.5 m on trees in mature conifer plantations and directly on exposed rock in blanket peatlands result in significantly greater catches, hand searching is the most successful approach for clear-fell areas. Hand searches in clear-fell preceded by rain are likely to result in greater numbers caught. The results of this study form, for the first time, the basis for G. maculosus monitoring guidelines for forestry managers. © 2016, The Ecological Society of Japa

Monitoring the eu protected geomalacus maculosus (kerry slug): what are the factors affecting catch returns in open and forested habitats?

Geomalacus maculosus is a slug species protected under EU law with a distribution limited to the west of Ireland and north-west Iberia. The species, originally thought to be limited within Ireland to deciduous woodland and peatland, has been found in a number of commercial conifer plantations since 2010. While forest managers are now required to incorporate the protection of the species where it is present, no clear species monitoring protocols are currently available. This study examines the efficacy of De Sangosse refuge traps across three habitats frequently associated with commercial forest plantations in Ireland and compares them with hand searching, a commonly used method for slug monitoring. Catch data during different seasons and under different weather conditions are also presented. Results indicate that autumn is the optimal time for sampling G. maculosus but avoiding extremes of hot or cold weather. While refuge traps placed at 1.5 m on trees in mature conifer plantations and directly on exposed rock in blanket peatlands result in significantly greater catches, hand searching is the most successful approach for clear-fell areas. Hand searches in clear-fell preceded by rain are likely to result in greater numbers caught. The results of this study form, for the first time, the basis for G. maculosus monitoring guidelines for forestry managers

Progressive resistance training in a post-acute, older, inpatient setting: a randomised controlled feasibility study.

Objectives: Progressive resistance training can successfully target functional decline in healthy older community-dwelling adults. There are concerns about the safety and acceptance of its use in frail older populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using progressive resistance training in an older, post-acute, inpatient setting. Methods: A randomised controlled feasibility study was conducted. Appropriate older inpatients undergoing post-acute rehabilitation were recruited. Feasibility measures examined were safety, recruitment, outcome measurement, adherence and retention rates and satisfaction. A range of clinical measures were used to capture changes in body structure and function, activity and participation. Assessments were performed on admission to the study and six weeks later. Results: A sample of 33 patients were included and randomised to the treatment group (n=16) or the control group (n=17). There were no serious adverse events, adherence rates were 63% and retention rates were 82%. While both groups improved between time 1 and 2, there were no significant differences in clinical measures between the groups. Conclusion: Progressive resistance training is a safe and acceptable intervention for use with this population. Further work on the effectiveness of progressive resistance training in this setting is now required.</p