An exploration of the factors influencing career choice in mental health

Aims and objectives: To identify the factors that are associated with considering a career in mental health. Background: The mental health specialty is facing a recruitment crisis in the United Kingdom but there is limited evidence about which factors encourage and discourage people from considering a career in mental health. Design: Quantitative, observational, online survey using a multiple ordinal logistic regression model to identify if there were any significant predictors of the extent to which participants would consider a career in mental health. The design and write up of the study were guided by the STROBE checklist. Method: We gathered the views of 231 participants (female = 188, 81.7%) aged between 16–65 (mean = 22.7, SD = 8.9), using an online survey, the majority of whom were studying on, or graduates of, psychology/social studies degrees. Information was gathered about the extent to which a range of factors influenced consideration of a career in mental health. Results: The majority (71.2%) of participants reported that they would definitely or probably consider undertaking a career in mental health, and over half (51.4%) would consider a career as a mental health nurse. The ability to help others and receiving appropriate training required for the role were important career choice factors. Being female, having a mental health condition and greater knowledge of mental health were associated with a significantly greater likelihood of considering a career in mental health, while having had experience of working with people with mental health difficulties was significantly negatively associated. Conclusions: Students and graduates of psychology and social studies degrees appear to be a large, untapped recruitment pool for mental health services. Relevance to clinical practice: The results can inform more targeted recruitment strategies and development of suitable career pathways for those interested in a career in mental health

Does the quality and outcomes framework reduce psychiatric admissions in people with serious mental illness? A regression analysis

BackgroundThe Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) incentivises general practices in England to provide proactive care for people with serious mental illness (SMI) including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses. Better proactive primary care may reduce the risk of psychiatric admissions to hospital, but this has never been tested empirically.MethodsThe QOF data set included 8234 general practices in England from 2006/2007 to 2010/2011. Rates of hospital admissions with primary diagnoses of SMI or bipolar disorder were estimated from national routine hospital data and aggregated to practice level. Poisson regression was used to analyse associations.ResultsPractices with higher achievement on the annual review for SMI patients (MH9), or that performed better on either of the two lithium indicators for bipolar patients (MH4 or MH5), had more psychiatric admissions. An additional 1% in achievement rates for MH9 was associated with an average increase in the annual practice admission rate of 0.19% (95% CI 0.10% to 0.28%) or 0.007 patients (95% CI 0.003 to 0.01).ConclusionsThe positive association was contrary to expectation, but there are several possible explanations: better quality primary care may identify unmet need for secondary care; higher QOF achievement may not prevent the need for secondary care; individuals may receive their QOF checks postdischarge rather than prior to admission; individuals with more severe SMI may be more likely to be registered with practices with better QOF performance; and QOF may be a poor measure of the quality of care for people with SMI

Workplace bullying: measurements and metrics to use in the NHS. Final Report for NHS Employers.

The aim of this report is to identify how workplace bullying can be tracked over time, to indicate what measures and metrics can be used to identify change, and to provide comparators for other sectors in the UK and internationally. Bullying can encompass a range of different behaviours. Deciding on a definition of workplace bullying can clarify what is regarded as bullying, but it may also narrow the focus and exclude relevant issues of concern. For example, bullying definitions typically state that negative behaviours should be experienced persistently over a period of time. The threshold for behaviours to be defined as ‘bullying’ could be set to include one or two negative acts per month over the previous six months; or more stringently to include only behaviours that occur at least weekly over the previous twelve months. Choosing an appropriate threshold for frequency and duration of behaviours raises several questions: should occasional negative behaviours be regarded as bullying? Would one or two serious episodes of negative behaviour be regarded as bullying? Some researchers use the criteria of weekly negative behaviours over six months to identify bullying, but others argue that occasional exposure to negative acts can act as a significant stressor at work (Zapf et al., 2011). We have identified a range of tools and metrics that can be used to track change over time. However, there are a number of important issues to consider when measuring bullying which may affect the interpretation of the results. In particular, bullying prevalence rates vary considerably depending on the type of metric and definition of bullying used. For example, one international review found prevalence rates ranging from less than 1% for weekly bullying in the last six months up to 87% for occasional bullying over a whole career (Zapf et al., 2011). There are three main types of direct measures of bullying: self-labelling without a definition, self-labelling with a definition, and the behavioural experience method. Self-labelling metrics typically ask a respondent to identify themselves as a target of bullying (e.g., “Have you been bullied at work?” with a yes/no response, or “How often have you been bullied at work?” with a frequency scale such as never/occasionally/monthly/weekly/daily). This approach is quick and easy to administer, but is more subjective as responses will be based on the respondent’s interpretation of bullying. This approach can be improved with the provision of a definition of bullying, and a request to use the definition when responding. However, following pilot work, Fevre et al. (2011) argued that respondents tended not to read and digest bullying definitions as they had already decided what bullying meant to them. The behavioural experience method offers a more objective approach, but is typically longer and more time consuming. This method involves respondents rating the frequency with which they have experienced different negative behaviours (e.g., “How often has someone humiliated or belittled you in front of others?” with a frequency scale such as never/now and then/monthly/weekly/daily). These behavioural inventories may not mention bullying, but capture the prevalence of specific negative acts, and a total score may be calculated. The threshold for the frequency and number of negative acts, or a total score, required for an experience to be regarded as bullying can be chosen by the researcher. Although this enhances the objectivity of the measure, it may be that the respondent themselves may not regard their experience as bullying. In a meta-analysis of bullying studies conducted across 24 countries, Nielsen et al. (2010) found an overall prevalence rate of 18.1% for self-labelling with no definition, 11.3% for self-labelling with a definition, and 14.8% using a behavioural experience checklist. For best practice, it is recommended that both the self-labelling with a definition and the behavioural experience method are used in bullying research (Zapf et al., 2011). It is also important to be specific about the type of bullying being measured. In particular, if the measure is designed to capture bullying at work between co-workers this should be explicitly stated, so that bullying from patients and their relatives is excluded. Interpretation of the results may also be somewhat complex. Although increases in bullying prevalence should undoubtedly be addressed, we need to be mindful that an increase in reported bullying may reflect a change in culture: changing expectations of the behaviour of colleagues and managers, or a move towards greater openness and willingness to address concerns that were previously ignored or condoned. A measure of employees’ trust in the organisation to respond appropriately to such allegations may act as a positive indicator. The perceived and actual anonymity of responses is a critical factor. Employees are understandably wary about providing sensitive information on bullying and have voiced concerns regarding being identified and the potential repercussions of reporting bullying (Carter et al., 2013). There is a considerable discrepancy between the prevalence of bullying as captured in anonymous questionnaires and direct reports of bullying made to the organisation (e.g., to managers or HR; Scott, Blanshard & Child, 2008). Protecting the anonymity of respondents, and ensuring that individuals cannot be identified, will be important factors in the administration of a bullying measure. Some metrics are already routinely collected by the NHS, and if examined closely could provide useful indicators of change. Direct indicators include complaints about bullying and responses to ongoing NHS staff surveys. Indirect metrics can be used to capture factors that are associated with bullying, such as psychological wellbeing (including stress, anxiety and depression), sickness rates, job satisfaction and organisational commitment. However, factors other than bullying will affect these measures. The prevalence of witnessed bullying could also be considered as an important metric. A large proportion of NHS staff report that they have witnessed bullying between staff, and this is associated with negative outcomes for individuals and teams (Carter et al., 2013). Comparing the NHS prevalence rates with other sectors in the UK and internationally is complex. Ideally comparators would have used the same definition, measurement method and reporting period, but the definitions and metrics often differ. Total populations are the ideal, but are rarely provided. Single site studies are less generalisable than multi-site studies, and total samples are preferred over open invitations to unknown populations which may be more likely to attract responses from those who have experienced bullying. This report begins with several definitions of bullying, describes direct and indirect measures of bullying, and compares the prevalence of bullying in the NHS to other sectors in the UK, and to the healthcare sector internationally

GPAQ-R: development and psychometric properties of a version of the general practice assessment questionnaire for use for revalidation by general practitioners in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ) has been widely used to assess patient experience in general practice in the UK since 2004. In 2013, new regulations were introduced by the General Medical Council (GMC) requiring UK doctors to undertake periodic revalidation, which includes assessment of patient experience for individual doctors. We describe the development of a new version of GPAQ - GPAQ-R which addresses the GMC's requirements for revalidation as well as additional NHS requirements for surveys that GPs may need to carry out in their own practices. METHODS: Questionnaires were given out by doctors or practice staff after routine consultations in line with the guidance given by the General Medical Council for surveys to be used for revalidation. Data analysis and practice reports were provided independently. RESULTS: Data were analysed for questionnaires from 7258 patients relating to 164 GPs in 29 general practices. Levels of missing data were generally low (typically 4.5-6%). The number of returned questionnaires required to achieve reliability of 0.7 were around 35 for individual doctor communication items and 29 for a composite score based on doctor communication items. This suggests that the responses to GPAQ-R had similar reliability to the GMC's own questionnaire and we recommend 30 completed GPAQ-R questionnaires are sufficient for revalidation purposes. However, where an initial screen raises concern, the survey might be repeated with 50 completed questionnaires in order to increase reliability. CONCLUSIONS: GPAQ-R is a development of a well-established patient experience questionnaire used in general practice in the UK since 2004. This new version can be recommended for use in order to meet the UK General Medical Council's requirements for surveys to be used in revalidation of doctors. It also meets the needs of GPs to ask about patient experience relating to aspects of practice care that are not specific to individual general practitioners (e.g. receptionists, telephone access) which meet other survey requirements of the National Health Service in England. Use of GPAQ-R has the potential to reduce the number of surveys that GPs need to carry out in their practices to meet the various regulatory requirements which they face

Assessing the impact of a new health sector pay system upon NHS staff in England

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay and pay systems are a critical element in any health sector human resource strategy. Changing a pay system can be one strategy to achieve or sustain organizational change. This paper reports on the design and implementation of a completely new pay system in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. 'Agenda for Change' constituted the largest-ever attempt to introduce a new pay system in the UK public services, covering more than one million staff. Its objectives were to improve the delivery of patient care as well as enhance staff recruitment, retention and motivation, and to facilitate new ways of working.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was the first independent assessment of the impact of Agenda for Change at a local and national level. The methods used in the research were a literature review; review of 'grey' unpublished documentation provided by key stakeholders in the process; analysis of available data; interviews with key national informants (representing government, employers and trade unions), and case studies conducted with senior human resource managers in ten NHS hospitals in England</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most of the NHS trust managers interviewed were in favour of Agenda for Change, believing it would assist in delivering improvements in patient care and staff experience. The main benefits highlighted were: 'fairness', moving different staff groups on to harmonized conditions; equal pay claim 'protection'; and scope to introduce new roles and working practices.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Agenda for Change took several years to design, and has only recently been implemented. Its very scale and central importance to NHS costs and delivery of care argues for a full assessment at an early stage so that lessons can be learned and any necessary changes made. This paper highlights weaknesses in evaluation and limitations in progress. The absence of systematically derived and applied impact indicators makes it difficult to assess impact and impact variations. Similarly, the lack of any full and systematic evaluation constrained the overall potential for Agenda for Change to deliver improvements to the NHS.</p

White British researchers and internationally educated research participants: insights from reflective practices on issues of language and culture in nursing contexts

This paper explores how reflexive practices enabled researchers to achieve a more complex analysis of qualitative data generated from focus groups. Drawing upon our experiences as two White British researchers, conducting a study with internationally educated nurses from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds, we consider how our analysis led us to a more nuanced understanding of the data than might have occurred without reflexivity. We identified our respective standpoints, confronted our feared biases, particularly in relation to social stereotyping and prejudice, and located ourselves as co-producers of the data. This enabled us to consider how we might be representing, holding and paralleling, systemic patterns of discrimination, leading to several new insights. Reflexive practice is often referred to in theory, less often in application. We hope that sharing our reflexive process will benefit other researchers navigating the complex waters of identifying themselves in their research

e-Roster Policy: Insights and implications of codifying nurse scheduling

Following a decade of dissemination, particularly within the British National Health Service (NHS), electronic rostering systems were recently endorsed within the Carter Review. However, e-rostering necessitates the formal codification of the roster process. This research investigates that codification through the lens of the 'Roster Policy', a formal document specifying the rules and procedures used to prepare staff rosters. This study is based upon analysis of twenty-seven publicly available policies, each approved within a four-year period from January 2010 to July 2014. This research finds that, at an executive level, codified knowledge is used as a proxy for the common language and experience otherwise acquired on a ward through everyday interaction, while at ward level the nurse rostering problem continues to resist all efforts at simplification. Ultimately, it is imperative that executives recognise that e-rostering is not a silver-bullet and that information from such systems requires careful interpretation and circumspection

UK policy on social networking sites and online health: from informed patient to informed consumer?

Background: Social networking sites offer new opportunities for communication between and amongst health care professionals, patients and members of the public. In doing so, they have the potential to facilitate public access to health care information, peer-support networks, health policy fora and online consultations. Government policies and guidance from professional organisations have begun to address the potential of these technologies in the domain of health care and the responsibilities they entail for their users. Objective: Adapting a discourse analytic framework for the analysis of policy documents, this review paper critically examines discussions of social networking sites in recent government and professional policy documents. It focuses particularly on who these organisations claim should use social media, for what purposes, and what the anticipated outcomes of use will be for patients and the organisations themselves. Conclusion: Recent policy documents have configured social media as a new means with which to harvest patient feedback on health care encounters and communicate health care service information with which patients and the general public can be ‘empowered’ to make responsible decisions. In orienting to social media as a vehicle for enabling consumer choice, these policies encourage the marketization of health information through a greater role for non-profit and commercial organisations in the eHealth domain. At the same time, current policy largely overlooks the role of social media in mediating ongoing support and self-management for patients with long-term conditions

A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients

Objectives: Primary care patients typically have less severe illness than those in hospital and may be overtreated if clinical guideline evidence is inappropriately generalized. We aimed to assess whether guideline recommendations for primary care were based on relevant research. Study Design and Setting: Literature review of all publications cited in support of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations for primary care. The relevance to primary care of all 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011, and their recommendations, was assessed by an expert panel. Results: Twenty-two of 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011 were relevant to primary care. These 22 guidelines contained 1,185 recommendations, of which 495 were relevant to primary care, and cited evidence from 1,573 research publications. Of these cited publications, 590 (38%, range by guideline 6–74%) were based on patients typical of primary care. Conclusion: Nearly two-third (62%) of publications cited to support primary care recommendations were of uncertain relevance to patients in primary care. Guideline development groups should more clearly identify which recommendations are intended for primary care and uncertainties about the relevance of the supporting evidence to primary care patients, to avoid potential overtreatment