Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Open Heart ; 10(1)2023 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37055174

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), beyond impact of socioeconomic status. CVD is preventable and treatable, though barriers to interventions exist for people experiencing homelessness. Those with lived experience of homelessness and health professionals with relevant expertise can help to understand and address these barriers. OBJECTIVES: To understand, and make recommendations to improve, CVD care in homeless populations through lived and professional expertise. METHOD: Four focus groups were conducted in March-July 2019. Three groups included people currently or previously experiencing homelessness, each attended by a cardiologist (AB), a health services researcher (PB) and an 'expert by experience' (SB) who coordinated participants. One group included multidisciplinary health and social care professionals in and around London to explore solutions. PARTICIPANTS: The three groups included 16 men and 9 women, aged 20-60 years, of whom 24 were homeless and currently living in hostels, and 1 rough sleeper. At least 14 discussed sleeping rough at some point. RESULTS: Participants were aware of CVD risks and relevance of healthy habits but identified barriers to prevention and health access, starting with disorientation affecting planning and self-care, lack of facilities for food, hygiene and exercise, and experiences of discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: CVD care for those experiencing homelessness should account for fundamental problems of the environment, be codesigned with service users and cover key principles: flexibility, public and staff education, integration of support and advocacy for health service rights.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases , Ill-Housed Persons , Male , Humans , Female , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Qualitative Research , Focus Groups , Exercise
3.
BMJ Open Qual ; 8(2): e000411, 2019.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31259277

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Patients need to feel confident about looking after their own health. This is needed to improve patient outcomes and clinical support. With few suitable tools available to measure self-care health confidence, we developed and validated a short, generic survey instrument for use in evaluation and quality improvement. Methods: The Health Confidence Score (HCS) was developed through literature review, patient and expert focus groups and discussions. This paper reports an initial survey (n = 1031, study 1) which identified some issues and a further face-to-face survey (n = 378, study 2) to test the construct and concurrent validity of the final version. Scores were correlated against the My Health Confidence (MHC) rating scale, howRu (health status measure) and relevant demographics. Results: The HCS is short (50 words) with good readability (reading age 8). It has four items covering health knowledge, capability to self-manage, access to help and shared decision-making; each has four response options (strongly agree, agree, neutral disagree). Items are reported independently and as a summary score.The mean summary score was 76.7 (SD 20.4) on 0-100 scale. Cronbach's alpha = 0.82. Exploratory factor analysis suggested that the four items relate to a single dimension. Correlation of the HCS summary score with MHC was high (Spearman r = 0.76). It was also associated with health status (Spearman r = 0.49), negatively with number of medications taken (r=-0.29) and age (r=-0.22) and not with ethnicity, having children or education level. Conclusions: The HCS is short, easy to use, with good psychometric properties and construct validity. Each item is meaningful independently and the summary score gives an overall picture of health confidence.


Subject(s)
Patient Satisfaction , Psychometrics/standards , Quality of Health Care/standards , Focus Groups/methods , Health Literacy , Humans , Psychometrics/instrumentation , Psychometrics/methods , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
BMJ Open ; 9(3): e025460, 2019 03 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30928942

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess health informatics (HI) training in UK postgraduate medical education, across all specialties, against international standards in the context of UK digital health initiatives (eg, Health Data Research UK, National Health Service Digital Academy and Global Digital Exemplars). DESIGN: A mixed methods study of UK postgraduate clinician training curricula (71 specialties) against international HI standards: scoping review, curricular content analysis and expert consultation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A scoping literature review (PubMed until March 2017) informed development of a contemporary framework of HI competency domains for doctors. National training curricula for 71 postgraduate medical specialties were obtained from the UK General Medical Council and were analysed. Seven UK HI experts were consulted regarding findings. OUTCOMES: The International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Recommendations for Biomedical and Health Informatics Education were used to develop a framework of competency domains. The number (maximum 50) of HI competency domains included in each of the 71 UK postgraduate medical specialties was investigated. After expert review, a universal HI competency framework was proposed. RESULTS: A framework of 50 HI competency domains was developed using 21 curricula from a scoping review, curricular content analysis and expert consultation. All 71 UK postgraduate medical curricula documents were mapped across 29 of 50 framework domains; that is, 21 domains were unrepresented. Curricula mapped between 0 (child and adolescent psychiatry and core surgical training) and 16 (chemical pathology and paediatric and perinatal pathology) of the 50 domains (median=7). Expert consultation found that HI competencies should be universal and integrated with existing competencies for UK clinicians and were under-represented in current curricula. Additional universal HI competencies were identified, including information governance and security and secondary use of data. CONCLUSIONS: Postgraduate medical education in the UK neglects HI competencies set out by international standards. Key HI competencies need to be urgently integrated into training curricula to prepare doctors for work in increasingly digitised healthcare environments.


Subject(s)
Clinical Competence/standards , Education, Medical, Graduate , Medical Informatics/standards , Curriculum , Expert Testimony , Humans , Information Management/education , Information Management/standards , Information Technology/standards , Inservice Training , Medical Informatics/education , United Kingdom
5.
Milbank Q ; 87(4): 729-88, 2009 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20021585

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: The extensive research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches. METHODS: Using the meta-narrative method and searching beyond the Medline-indexed literature, this review used "conflicting" findings to address higher-order questions about how researchers had differently conceptualized and studied the EPR and its implementation. FINDINGS: Twenty-four previous systematic reviews and ninety-four further primary studies were considered. Key tensions in the literature centered on (1) the EPR ("container" or "itinerary"); (2) the EPR user ("information-processer" or "member of socio-technical network"); (3) organizational context ("the setting within which the EPR is implemented" or "the EPR-in-use"); (4) clinical work ("decision making" or "situated practice"); (5) the process of change ("the logic of determinism" or "the logic of opposition"); (6) implementation success ("objectively defined" or "socially negotiated"); and (7) complexity and scale ("the bigger the better" or "small is beautiful"). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that EPR use will always require human input to recontextualize knowledge; that even though secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work may be made less efficient; that paper may offer a unique degree of ecological flexibility; and that smaller EPR systems may sometimes be more efficient and effective than larger ones. We suggest an agenda for further research.


Subject(s)
Diffusion of Innovation , Health Services Research , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/organization & administration , Access to Information , England , Hospital Information Systems/organization & administration , Humans , MEDLINE , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...