Staff's insights into fall prevention solutions in long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Falls are one of the most common and serious health issues in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), impacting not just residents, but staff and the healthcare system. This study aimed to explore LTCF staff's current practices around falls prevention, and their suggested solutions for better falls prevention. METHODS: In the southwest of Ireland, a descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 13 LTCF sites, across a range of provider types and facility sizes. A survey, measuring staff knowledge, skills and attitudes, was distributed in physical and online formats. Staff suggestions for prioritising fall and fall-related injury prevention activities, and current staff practices regarding fall incidents were also sought. Content analysis was used to analyse responses, mapping categories and subcategories to the refined theoretical domains framework (TDF) and to an existing fall prevention guideline. RESULTS: There were 155 respondents (15% response rate), from staff of the LTCFs. Environmental reviews and modifications (aligned to the TDF environmental context and resource domain) were the most common suggestions for preventing both falls and fall-related injuries. Other common suggestions for preventing falls were staff education, monitoring of residents, and using alarm/calling systems, while few staff members, across all roles, reported assessing residents, exercises, reviewing medications, and vitamin D supplements. For preventing fall-related injuries, suggestions included protective equipment, hip protectors and alarm/calling systems. Staff used a standardised approach when responding to a fall incident, with intensive and holistic post-fall control measures. HCAs focussed on transferring residents safely, while nurses of all grades focused more on post-fall assessment. Respondents believed that staff education, communication, increasing staffing levels and enhancing specialist care could support their practice. CONCLUSION: Noting the low response rate, the results suggest an awareness gap regarding some evidence-based, resident-focussed falls prevention solutions, such as pro-active fall-risk assessment, exercise, medication review, and Vitamin D supplements. These aspects should be included in future fall prevention education programmes in LTCFs.

Teaching strategies for shared decision-making within the context of evidence-based healthcare practice: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the nature of teaching Shared Decision Making (SDM) within the context of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) to support development of contemporaneous EBP education programmes for healthcare learners. METHODS: A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) used to guide reporting. RESULTS: The narrative overview of 23 studies provides insight into the 'what' and 'how' of teaching SDM within the context of EBP education. A minority of studies explicitly and concurrently incorporated EBP and SDM in terms of how programme content was organised. Teaching strategies most often used regardless of learner cohort or setting included didactic, face-to-face lectures, together with role-play/modelling, small group workshops and video recordings. Programme evaluation outcomes predominantly focused on participant reactions to training and participant learning. CONCLUSION: While a disconnect between EBP and SDM remains evident in healthcare programmes, increased recognition by educators to actively facilitate this interdependent relationship is emerging. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Intentionally structuring learning activities in a manner which demonstrates the relevance and interdependence of SDM and EBP may mitigate 'learning silos' and enhance learners' abilities to make connections required in practice.

Mental health provision in schools: priority, facilitators and barriers in 10 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Although schools are a key setting for the provision of mental health support for young people, little is known about the facilitators and barriers for providing such support. This study aimed to collect information from schools in 10 European countries regarding the priority given to mental health support for students, existence of a mental health-related school policy, links with relevant external agencies, schools' perceptions on whether they are providing sufficient mental health support and the barriers to provision of mental health support. METHODS: Data from 1346 schools were collected in France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and Ukraine through an online survey. RESULTS: Around 3% of the surveyed schools indicated that mental health provision was not a priority, compared to 47% indicating that it was a high/essential priority. More than half the surveyed schools did not implement a school policy regarding mental health. Half the surveyed schools reported not providing sufficient support with the key barriers identified including limited staff capacity, funding, access to specialists and lack of national policy and less than a third of schools reported good or excellent links with local mental health services. However, the responses varied by country with 8-19% between-country variation across the study outcomes. Secondary schools reported significantly better links with agencies, were more likely to have a school policy and were less likely to indicate having sufficient existing support compared to primary schools. Privately funded schools reported that mental health support was a higher priority and identified less barriers to provision compared to publicly funded schools. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an up-to-date and cross-country insight into schools' perceptions regarding priority given to mental health support and the barriers they face in providing sufficient mental health and wellbeing support for their students. The cross-country comparisons allow for a better understanding of the relationships between policy, practice and implementation and provide a platform for shared experiences and learning.