ABSTRACT
The Mental Health Act as amended 2007 democratised who could qualify for the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) role to include not only social workers, but psychologists, occupational therapists, and nurses. The amendments raised questions on how to appropriately train AMHPs from the professional groups without social work education to have adequate skills and decision-making capacity when considering the use of compulsory powers. Essential to the AMHP role is the obligation to 'bear in mind the social perspective', which incorporates the social dimensions to a persons mental health presentation and is considered a safeguard against the erroneous detention of service users. However, despite claims to further professionalise AMHPs there has been a difficulty defining what AMHP expertise is. This paper draws upon 'theories of professionalisation' to argue that the genericism movement and the adoption of New Public Management has limited the professionalisation of AMHPs and therefore adequate implementation of 'the social perspective'.
Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Mental Health , Humans , Social Workers/psychologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health care providers are often called to respond to in-flight medical emergencies, but lack familiarity with expected supplies, interventions, and ground medical control support. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether a mobile phone app (airRx) improves responses to simulated in-flight medical emergencies. METHODS: This was a randomized study of volunteer, nonemergency resident physician participants who managed simulated in-flight medical emergencies with or without the app. Simulations took place in a mock-up cabin in the simulation center. Standardized participants played the patient, family member, and flight attendant roles. Live, nonblinded rating was used with occasional video review for data clarification. Participants participated in two simulated in-flight medical emergencies (shortness of breath and syncope) and were evaluated with checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Checklist item success rates, key critical action times, GRS, and pre-post simulation confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies were compared. RESULTS: There were 29 participants in each arm (app vs control; N=58) of the study. Mean percentages of completed checklist items for the app versus control groups were mean 56.1 (SD 10.3) versus mean 49.4 (SD 7.4) for shortness of breath (P=.001) and mean 58 (SD 8.1) versus mean 49.8 (SD 7.0) for syncope (P<.001). The GRS improved with the app for the syncope case (mean 3.14, SD 0.89 versus control mean 2.6, SD 0.97; P=.003), but not the shortness of breath case (mean 2.90, SD 0.97 versus control mean 2.81, SD 0.80; P=.43). For timed checklist items, the app group contacted ground support faster for both cases, but the control group was faster to complete vitals and basic exam. Both groups indicated higher confidence in their postsimulation surveys, but the app group demonstrated a greater increase in this measure. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the airRx app prompted some actions, but delayed others. Simulated performance and feedback suggest the app is a useful adjunct for managing in-flight medical emergencies.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: High-value care (HVC) suggests that good history taking and physical examination should lead to risk stratification that drives the use or withholding of diagnostic testing. This study describes the development of a series of virtual standardized patient (VSP) cases and provides preliminary evidence that supports their ability to provide experiential learning in HVC. METHODS: This pilot study used VSPs, or natural language processing-based patient avatars, within the USC Standard Patient platform. Faculty consensus was used to develop the cases, including the optimal diagnostic testing strategies, treatment options, and scored content areas. First-year resident physician learners experienced two 90-minute didactic sessions before completing the cases in a computer laboratory, using typed text to interview the avatar for history taking, then completing physical examination, differential diagnosis, diagnostic testing, and treatment modules for each case. Learners chose a primary and 2 alternative "possible" diagnoses from a list of 6 to 7 choices, diagnostic testing options from an extensive list, and treatments from a brief list ranging from 6 to 9 choices. For the history-taking module, both faculty and the platform scored the learners, and faculty assessed the appropriateness of avatar responses. Four randomly selected learner-avatar interview transcripts for each case were double rated by faculty for interrater reliability calculations. Intraclass correlations were calculated for interrater reliability, and Spearman ρ was used to determine the correlation between the platform and faculty ranking of learners' history-taking scores. RESULTS: Eight VSP cases were experienced by 14 learners. Investigators reviewed 112 transcripts (4646 learner query-avatar responses). Interrater reliability means were 0.87 for learner query scoring and 0.83 for avatar response. Mean learner success for history taking was scored by the faculty at 57% and by the platform at 51% (ρ correlation of learner rankings = 0.80, P = 0.02). The mean avatar appropriate response rate was 85.6% for all cases. Learners chose the correct diagnosis within their 3 choices 82% of the time, ordered a median (interquartile range) of 2 (2) unnecessary tests and completed 56% of optimal treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Our avatar appropriate response rate was similar to past work using similar platforms. The simulations give detailed insights into the thoroughness of learner history taking and testing choices and with further refinement should support learning in HVC.
