A81预先选择文件:服务用户、护理人员和临床医生的模拟

Megan Fisher, Anita Bignell, Marcela Schilderman, Claire Henderson, Shubulade Smith, Abigail Babatunde, Selena Galloway, Mariola Ruiz
{"title":"A81预先选择文件:服务用户、护理人员和临床医生的模拟","authors":"Megan Fisher, Anita Bignell, Marcela Schilderman, Claire Henderson, Shubulade Smith, Abigail Babatunde, Selena Galloway, Mariola Ruiz","doi":"10.54531/ksgv4971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Advance Choice Documents (ACDs) are one of the important upcoming reforms to the Mental Health Act in the UK [1]. The aim of the document is to allow service users greater autonomy when they are well, to make decisions and guide what happens if they become unwell in the future. It is created by a service user and clinician in a shared decision-making process.\n Maudsley Learning (ML) collaborated with an Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience research team to provide a co-produced simulation day for service users, carers and clinicians. The aim was for participants to be able to gain a greater understanding of how to co-produce and implement ACDs.\n ML ran two separate simulation days, alongside, members of the research team including a lawyer and facilitator with lived experience.\n The initial part of the day included didactic teaching; allowing participants to learn more about ACDs and have a space to ask questions from those with lived experience, clinicians and lawyers. This ensured participants gained a baseline level of knowledge to undertake the scenarios.\n There were four simulation scenarios written, but only three took place on both days because of limited time. These revolved around one patient; the participants followed the patient through their ACD journey. The patient was played by an actor. All scenarios were designed to involve a clinician, often with the presence of a carer and service user as well.\n The debrief consisted of a modified Pendleton model with feedback from service user, carers and clinicians to allow feedback and learning from all involved.\n Participants were asked to complete a pre-course and post-course questionnaire. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to analyse the difference between pre- and post-course questionnaires. Results demonstrated a significant difference in scores for course-specific questions between the pre (M = 3.17, SD = 0.81) and post (M = 4.21, SD = 0.20), t(5) = -5.26, p <.05, 95% CI [-1.55, -0.53], with a large effect size of d = -2.15. 100% of participants would recommend this course.\n This was the first simulation that ML has run with a mixed group of learners that included not only clinicians, but also service users and carers taking part in the simulation and debrief. The feedback was positive and helped to improve the knowledge around ACD’s. It was also noticeable the positive difference it made having clinicians, service users and carers learning from one another.\n Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.","PeriodicalId":93766,"journal":{"name":"International journal of healthcare simulation : advances in theory and practice","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A81 Advance Choice Documents: a Simulation for Service Users, Carers and Clinicians\",\"authors\":\"Megan Fisher, Anita Bignell, Marcela Schilderman, Claire Henderson, Shubulade Smith, Abigail Babatunde, Selena Galloway, Mariola Ruiz\",\"doi\":\"10.54531/ksgv4971\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Advance Choice Documents (ACDs) are one of the important upcoming reforms to the Mental Health Act in the UK [1]. The aim of the document is to allow service users greater autonomy when they are well, to make decisions and guide what happens if they become unwell in the future. It is created by a service user and clinician in a shared decision-making process.\\n Maudsley Learning (ML) collaborated with an Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience research team to provide a co-produced simulation day for service users, carers and clinicians. The aim was for participants to be able to gain a greater understanding of how to co-produce and implement ACDs.\\n ML ran two separate simulation days, alongside, members of the research team including a lawyer and facilitator with lived experience.\\n The initial part of the day included didactic teaching; allowing participants to learn more about ACDs and have a space to ask questions from those with lived experience, clinicians and lawyers. This ensured participants gained a baseline level of knowledge to undertake the scenarios.\\n There were four simulation scenarios written, but only three took place on both days because of limited time. These revolved around one patient; the participants followed the patient through their ACD journey. The patient was played by an actor. All scenarios were designed to involve a clinician, often with the presence of a carer and service user as well.\\n The debrief consisted of a modified Pendleton model with feedback from service user, carers and clinicians to allow feedback and learning from all involved.\\n Participants were asked to complete a pre-course and post-course questionnaire. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to analyse the difference between pre- and post-course questionnaires. Results demonstrated a significant difference in scores for course-specific questions between the pre (M = 3.17, SD = 0.81) and post (M = 4.21, SD = 0.20), t(5) = -5.26, p <.05, 95% CI [-1.55, -0.53], with a large effect size of d = -2.15. 100% of participants would recommend this course.\\n This was the first simulation that ML has run with a mixed group of learners that included not only clinicians, but also service users and carers taking part in the simulation and debrief. The feedback was positive and helped to improve the knowledge around ACD’s. It was also noticeable the positive difference it made having clinicians, service users and carers learning from one another.\\n Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93766,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of healthcare simulation : advances in theory and practice\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of healthcare simulation : advances in theory and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54531/ksgv4971\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of healthcare simulation : advances in theory and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54531/ksgv4971","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

提前选择文件(Advance Choice Documents, ACDs)是英国《精神卫生法》即将进行的重要改革之一[1]。该文件的目的是允许服务用户在身体健康时拥有更大的自主权,以便在将来身体不适时做出决定和指导。它是由服务用户和临床医生在共同决策过程中创建的。莫兹利学习(ML)与精神病学、心理学和神经科学研究所的一个研究小组合作,为服务用户、护理人员和临床医生提供了一个共同制作的模拟日。其目的是使与会者能够更好地了解如何共同制定和实施亚洲发展议程。ML运行了两个独立的模拟日,以及研究团队的成员,包括一名律师和具有生活经验的调解人。一天的开始部分包括说教式教学;让参与者更多地了解ACDs,并有空间向有实际经验的人、临床医生和律师提问。这确保了参与者获得了承担场景的基线知识水平。写了四个模拟场景,但由于时间有限,两天只发生了三个。这些都围绕着一个病人;参与者跟随患者完成他们的ACD旅程。病人由一位演员扮演。所有场景的设计都涉及临床医生,通常还有护理人员和服务用户在场。汇报包括一个改进的彭德尔顿模型,其中包括来自服务用户、护理人员和临床医生的反馈,以允许所有参与者提供反馈和学习。参与者被要求完成课前和课后问卷调查。配对样本t检验分析课程前后问卷的差异。结果显示,治疗前(M = 3.17, SD = 0.81)和治疗后(M = 4.21, SD = 0.20)的课程问题得分存在显著差异,t(5) = -5.26, p <0.05, 95% CI[-1.55, -0.53],大效应量d = -2.15。100%的参与者会推荐这门课程。这是ML首次与混合学习者进行模拟,其中不仅包括临床医生,还包括参与模拟和汇报的服务用户和护理人员。反馈是积极的,有助于提高对ACD的认识。同样值得注意的是,它使临床医生、服务使用者和护理人员相互学习产生了积极的影响。作者确认已符合研究行为和传播的所有相关伦理标准。提交作者确认已获得相关的伦理批准(如适用)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A81 Advance Choice Documents: a Simulation for Service Users, Carers and Clinicians
Advance Choice Documents (ACDs) are one of the important upcoming reforms to the Mental Health Act in the UK [1]. The aim of the document is to allow service users greater autonomy when they are well, to make decisions and guide what happens if they become unwell in the future. It is created by a service user and clinician in a shared decision-making process. Maudsley Learning (ML) collaborated with an Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience research team to provide a co-produced simulation day for service users, carers and clinicians. The aim was for participants to be able to gain a greater understanding of how to co-produce and implement ACDs. ML ran two separate simulation days, alongside, members of the research team including a lawyer and facilitator with lived experience. The initial part of the day included didactic teaching; allowing participants to learn more about ACDs and have a space to ask questions from those with lived experience, clinicians and lawyers. This ensured participants gained a baseline level of knowledge to undertake the scenarios. There were four simulation scenarios written, but only three took place on both days because of limited time. These revolved around one patient; the participants followed the patient through their ACD journey. The patient was played by an actor. All scenarios were designed to involve a clinician, often with the presence of a carer and service user as well. The debrief consisted of a modified Pendleton model with feedback from service user, carers and clinicians to allow feedback and learning from all involved. Participants were asked to complete a pre-course and post-course questionnaire. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to analyse the difference between pre- and post-course questionnaires. Results demonstrated a significant difference in scores for course-specific questions between the pre (M = 3.17, SD = 0.81) and post (M = 4.21, SD = 0.20), t(5) = -5.26, p <.05, 95% CI [-1.55, -0.53], with a large effect size of d = -2.15. 100% of participants would recommend this course. This was the first simulation that ML has run with a mixed group of learners that included not only clinicians, but also service users and carers taking part in the simulation and debrief. The feedback was positive and helped to improve the knowledge around ACD’s. It was also noticeable the positive difference it made having clinicians, service users and carers learning from one another. Authors confirm that all relevant ethical standards for research conduct and dissemination have been met. The submitting author confirms that relevant ethical approval was granted, if applicable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A pilot study comparing immersive virtual reality simulation and computerized virtual patient simulation in undergraduate medical education Use of prebriefing in simulation-based experience for nursing education: a scoping review Cross-discipline teaching and learning of cardiology through an augmented reality application The effectiveness and efficiency of using ChatGPT for writing health care simulations A75 Strengthening simulation quality assurance through the ‘Sim QA bundle’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1