Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Staff Ratings (staff + rating)
Selected AbstractsRoom for improvement: nurses' and physicians' views of a post-operative pain management programACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 3 2010C. S. HARTOG Background: The practice of post-operative pain therapy continues to be a problem. We conducted a survey among nurses and physicians about their views of an established post-operative pain management program. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all nurses and physicians of nine surgical wards (general, trauma, cardio-thoracic and oromaxillofacial surgery and gynecology). Questions were developed from qualitative interviews with staff. Patient data were derived from a post-operative pain registry. Results: Seventy-eight physicians and nurses answered; the overall response rate was 23%. Post-operative pain therapy had high personal priority on an 11-point numeric rating scale (mean 9.08±1.27 standard deviation), but the success of pain management on the ward was rated as 7.32±1.37. Staff rating of success tended to correspond with patients' actual pain ratings. Knowledge of pain therapy was assessed as 6.85±1.82; nurses consistently rated levels higher than physicians. Staff over- or underestimated the painfulness of typical procedures and females rated procedures as more painful than men. There was considerable confusion about responsibilities and duties. 10.7% of staff perceived time delays exceeding 6 h between a request for acute pain services (APS) consultation and administration of medication to the patient. Invited comments suggested improvement in personnel education, team coordination, communication with patients and speed of action to increase the quality of pain therapy. Conclusion: Despite staff's high personal priority and well-established APS and pain management program, post-operative pain therapy still leaves room for improvement. Considerable confusion about responsibilities and duties underlines the importance of better organizational approaches. [source] Needs and risks of patients in a state-wide inpatient forensic mental health populationINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MENTAL HEALTH NURSING, Issue 4 2010Ariel Segal ABSTRACT Routine needs assessments have become mandated requirements for public mental health services. However, the appropriateness of these generic health needs assessments to specialist populations remains questionable. This study sought to assess individual needs assessed using a widely used clinician rated assessment (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales-Secure; HoNOS-Secure), a subjective needs assessment that considers both staff and patient perspectives (Camberwell Assessment of Need-Forensic version; CANFOR), and a measure of risk for general criminal recidivism (Level of Service Inventory: Screening Version; LSI:SV) in a secure forensic mental health service. Results revealed significant positive correlations between staff ratings on HoNOS-Secure, CANFOR total needs, and CANFOR met needs scores, but no significant association between CANFOR ratings or HoNOS-Secure ratings and LSI:SV scores. Although patients and staff reported the same number of needs overall according to CANFOR (7.2 vs. 7.5, P > 0.05), patients reported that more of these needs were unmet (3.1 vs. 2.3, P < 0.05). Differences between staff and patient ratings of need suggest that needs assessments should include patient perspectives to facilitate more collaborative and comprehensive care planning. Divergent perspectives between patients and staff may impair patient engagement in treatment and therefore negatively impact on outcome. Service planning issues and opportunities for future research are discussed. [source] Self-ratings in Training Programs: An Examination of Level of Performance and the Effects of FeedbackINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT, Issue 3 2001Sally A. Carless The level of agreement (mean differences and correlations) between self, peer and training staff ratings were examined in this study. The sample consisted of 545 participants who were undertaking a Royal Australian Airforce officer training program. Consistent with previous research there was strong agreement between training staff and peers and weak agreement between self-ratings and ratings by others (training staff and peers). Accuracy of ratings was examined by (a) comparing the mean ratings of outstanding, average and below-average performers; and (b) correlating difference scores with a measure of performance. The findings showed that below-average performers have a less accurate view of themselves compared to outstanding performers. Finally, we examined the effects of negative feedback on self-perceptions. The analyses indicated that after receiving negative feedback, average performers adjusted their self-ratings. Various explanations were proposed together with practical implications for training. [source] A Follow-up of Deinstitutionalized Men with Intellectual Disabilities and Histories of Antisocial BehaviourJOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES, Issue 4 2004Vernon L. Quinsey Background, There is frequently great concern about the dangerousness of deinstitutionalized men with intellectual disabilities who have been institutionalized because they are considered to be at high risk for the commission of serious antisocial acts or sexual offending. Unfortunately, there is little information on whether changes in the behaviour of these men can be used to adjust supervision so as to manage risk. Methods, An appraisal of men with intellectual disabilities and histories of serious antisocial behaviours who were residing in institutions about to be closed led to a 16 month follow-up of 58 of these clients who had been transferred to community settings. Results, A total of 67% exhibited antisocial behaviour of some kind and 47% exhibited ,hands-on' violent or sexual misbehaviours directed toward other clients or staff. The Violent Risk Appraisal Guide was the best predictor of new violent or sexual incidents and a variety of other pre-release predictors were related to the likelihood of antisocial incidents of any kind. Overall predictive accuracy was moderate. A field trial showed that monthly staff ratings of client characteristics were related to antisocial incidents. Conclusions, These preliminary data indicate that measures of dynamic risk involving staff ratings are worth developing and evaluating. [source] Clinical teaching and clinical outcomes: teaching capability and its association with patient outcomesMEDICAL EDUCATION, Issue 7 2006Ophyr Mourad Background, There is little research on the impact of medical education on patient outcome. We studied whether teaching capability is associated with altered short-term patient outcomes. Methods, We performed a multicentre retrospective cross-sectional study involving 40 clinician teachers who had attended on the general internal medicine services in hospitals affiliated with the University of Toronto along with the clinical outcomes of consecutive patients treated for community-acquired pneumonia, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 4377) between 1999 and 2001. Doctors were characterised by teaching effectiveness scores (n = 677) as high-rated or low-rated according to house staff ratings. Results, There was no correlation between the teaching effectiveness scores and the mean length of stay for those patients treated for community-acquired pneumonia (high-rated = 10.3 versus low-rated = 8.1 days, P = 0.058), congestive heart failure (high-rated = 10.1 versus low-rated = 9.9 days, P = 0.978), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (high-rated = 9.4 versus low-rated = 9.9 days, P = 0.419) and gastrointestinal bleeding (high-rated = 6.3 versus low-rated = 6.8 days, P = 0.741). In addition, we observed no significant correlation between teaching effectiveness scores and 7-day, 28-day and 1-year readmission rates for all pre-specified diagnoses. Conclusion, There is no large correlation between teaching effectiveness scores and short-term patient outcomes, suggesting that doctor teaching capabilities, as perceived by house staff, does not generally impact clinical care. [source] | ||||||||||