Staffing
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/4968
2024-03-28T15:50:49Z
-
Ethnic inequalities among NHS staff in England: Workplace experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/18428
Ethnic inequalities among NHS staff in England: Workplace experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic
Morriss, Richard K.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine how workplace experiences of National Health Service (NHS) staff varied by ethnicity during the COVID-19 pandemic and how these experiences are associated with mental and physical health at the time of the study. METHODS: An online Inequalities Survey was conducted by the Tackling Inequalities and Discrimination Experiences in Health Services study in collaboration with NHS CHECK. This Inequalities Survey collected measures relating to workplace experiences (such as personal protective equipment (PPE), risk assessments, redeployments and discrimination) as well as mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), and physical health (PHQ-15) from NHS staff working in the 18 trusts participating with the NHS CHECK study between February and October 2021 (N=4622). RESULTS: Regression analysis of this cross-sectional data revealed that staff from black and mixed/other ethnic groups had greater odds of experiencing workplace harassment (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.43 (95% CI 1.56 to 3.78) and 2.38 (95% CI 1.12 to 5.07), respectively) and discrimination (AOR 4.36 (95% CI 2.73 to 6.96) and 3.94 (95% CI 1.67 to 9.33), respectively) compared with white British staff. Staff from black ethnic groups also had greater odds than white British staff of reporting PPE unavailability (AOR 2.16 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.00)). Such workplace experiences were associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes, though this association varied by ethnicity. Conversely, understanding employment rights around redeployment, being informed about and having the ability to inform redeployment decisions were associated with lower odds of poor physical and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Structural changes to the way staff from ethnically minoritised groups are supported, and how their complaints are addressed by leaders within the NHS are urgently required.
© Author(s) (or their
employer(s)) 2024. Re-use
permitted under CC BY.
Published by BMJ.his is an open access article distributed in accordance with the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits
others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any
purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given,
and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
-
Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the ambassadors survey in 38 countries
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/18072
Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the ambassadors survey in 38 countries
Slade, Mike
BackgroundWhile shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style – Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians’ expertise, training, and practice.ResultsSDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style.ConclusionsThe preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge
University Press on behalf of the European
Psychiatric Association. This is an Open Access
article, distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which
permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and
reproduction, provided the original article is
properly cited.
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
-
Turning hierarchy on its head: Are parallel learning partnerships the solution to creating inclusive cultures in healthcare?
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/18026
Turning hierarchy on its head: Are parallel learning partnerships the solution to creating inclusive cultures in healthcare?
Clifford, Naomi; Clarke, Martin; Conchar, Catherine
Background It is important that NHS Trusts create inclusive and compassionate organisational cultures in which black and minority ethnic (BME) staff can progress equitably. Race equality and development initiatives can be implemented to address this. The introduction of reverse and reciprocal mentoring programmes in numerous organisations has had varying levels of success. These programmes can emphasise and perpetuate hierarchical differences in pairs, causing barriers to creating mutually beneficial partnerships.Objectives This paper reports the evaluation findings of a race equality and professional development initiative: the Parallel Learning Partnerships (PLP) Programme. Launched in April 2021, 27 of the Trust’s Executive and senior leadership team members were paired with 27 BME colleagues for 1 year. The authors aimed to determine the efficacy of the initiative’s design and implementation, and partner experiences and outcomes, particularly in relation to learning and any evidence of genuinely equal partnerships.Participants Twenty-six programme participants responded to an online survey. One-to-one semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 programme participants.Results Findings revealed that the majority of participants developed effective and highly valued non-hierarchical learning partnerships. This was despite impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic creating additional pressures and affecting partnership meetings and activities. Partner outcomes included greater understanding and awareness around race equity matters, improved confidence and motivation, and enhanced leadership skills in relation to inclusivity and compassion.Conclusion The pilot programme has been largely successful in providing an effective mechanism for BME staff to engage and connect with the Trust’s executive and senior leaders on a reciprocal, equal and mutually beneficial basis. PLP resulted in a variety of beneficial outcomes for both groups of partners which may not have been possible within comparable mentoring models. Additional positive impacts to the wider organisation are anticipated to be evident in time with the programme’s continuation.No data are available. This is due to participants not having provided consent for this.
This article has been published in Clifford, N., Clarke, M. & Conchar, C. (2023). Turning hierarchy on its head: Are parallel learning partnerships the solution to creating inclusive cultures in healthcare? BMJ Leader, 7 (suppl 2), pp.1-7 following peer review and can be viewed on the journal's website at https://bmjleader.bmj.com/content/7/Suppl_2/1.8.
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
-
Experiences of deliberate practice orientated psychological skills training for cancer care staff: Barriers and facilitators to learning and implementation in practice
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/17995
Experiences of deliberate practice orientated psychological skills training for cancer care staff: Barriers and facilitators to learning and implementation in practice
Rathbone, James; Gibbons, Felicity; Brooks, Dan; Mays, Chloe; Malins, Samuel
This study explored participant-reported facilitators and barriers to learning and implementation from a 2-day training in psychological assessment and intervention skills for cancer staff, involving deliberate practice and supervision. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were analysed using thematic analysis leading to four meta-themes: perceived practicality of training, impact of training: practice and its effects, implementation transfer processes and supervision engagement. Analysis identified a learning process to implementation: observation and practice of techniques during training facilitated participant learning; personal use and relevance of training content encouraged reflection, which enabled selection of appropriate tools for clinical practice; gains in commitment and confidence to use techniques supported participants to adapt clinical consultations, and supervision further facilitated implementation. Changing practice increased confidence, sense of achievement and engagement with participants’ own wellbeing. Interactive training, deliberate practice and continuous learning were facilitators to implementation whilst time constraint and low confidence in using techniques in remote consultations were barriers.
© The Author(s) 2023.
Creative Commons License (CC BY 4.0)
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2023-01-01T00:00:00Z