Impact of a Grand Rounds Interprofessional Workshop: student perceptions of interprofessional socialization and cultural humility.

While uniprofessional education programs develop strong student identities, they may limit the development of behaviors needed for interprofessional socialization. Interprofessional education (IPE) creates an essential platform for student engagement in the development of interprofessional socialization and cultural humility, thus enabling improvement in collaborative communication. In this quasi-experimental observational study, health professional students attended one of three Grand Rounds Interprofessional Workshops (GRIW) and completed online pre- and post-workshop surveys including sociodemographic background, the Interprofessional Socialization and Valuing Scale (ISVS), and the Cultural Competence Self-Assessment Checklist (CCSAC). A total of 394 students from eight professions participated in the workshop with 287 (73%) of attendees completing both pre- and post-workshop surveys. No significant differences were observed in ISVS and CCSAC scores between students across workshops. Significant pre- to post-workshop differences were found in ISVS [t (284) = 13.5, p < .001, 95%], CCSAC [t (286) = 13.8, p < .001] and the cultural competence components of cultural awareness [t (285) = 12.9, p < .001, 95%], knowledge [t (285) = 9.5, p < .001, 95%], and skills [t (286) = 13.3, p < .001, 95%]. Interprofessional education learning opportunities that integrate socialization with health professional students and cultural humility education can improve educational awareness of cultural values and communication for collaborative professional practice.

Addressing the needs of older adults receiving alcohol treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 global pandemic resulted in major changes to the provision of alcohol treatment in the UK, these changes coincided with increases in the use of alcohol. This study sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on older adults in alcohol treatment, and to explore how changes in the provision of alcohol treatment were experienced. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were completed with older adults (aged 55+) in alcohol treatment, as well as alcohol practitioners providing support to older adults. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Alcohol use was assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption (AUDIT-C). RESULTS: Thirty older adults in alcohol treatment and fifteen alcohol practitioners were recruited. The COVID-19 pandemic was found to result in both increases and decreases in alcohol use; changes in alcohol use depended on a number of factors, such as living arrangements, family support, physical and mental health. Many alcohol treatment services moved to a model of remote support during the pandemic. However, face-to-face service provision was considered to be essential by both older adults in alcohol treatment and alcohol practitioners. Engagement with online support was low, with older adults facing barriers in using online technology. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the importance of face-to-face treatment and intervention for older adults in alcohol treatment. Addiction services may see increased demand for treatment as a result of the pandemic; it is important that services consider the needs of older adults, many of whom may be marginalised by a remote model of service provision.

Factors influencing routine cognitive impairment screening in older at-risk drinkers: Findings from a qualitative study in the United Kingdom.

Cognitive Impairment (CI) screening is recommended for those engaged in harmful levels of alcohol use. However, there is a lack of evidence on implementation. This paper explores the barriers and facilitators to CI screening experienced across a service specifically for older drinkers. The findings draw on data gathered as part of an evaluation of a multilevel programme to reduce alcohol-related harm in adults aged 50 and over in five demonstration areas across the United Kingdom. It is based on qualitative interviews and focus groups with 14 service providers and 22 service users. Findings are presented thematically under the section headings: acceptability of screening, interpretation and making sense of screening and treatment options. It is suggested that engagement with CI screening is most likely when its fit with agency culture and its purpose is clear; where service providers have the technical skills to administer and discuss the results of screening with service users; and where those undertaking screening have had the opportunity to reflect on their own experience of being screened. Engagement with CI screening is also most likely where specific intervention pathways and engagement practices can be accessed to respond to assessed need.