Cargando…

A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol

BACKGROUND: Protected engagement time (PET) is a concept of managing staff time on mental health inpatient wards with the aim of increasing staff and patient interaction. Despite apparent widespread use of PET, there remains a dearth of evidence as to how it is implemented and whether it carries ben...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nolan, Fiona M., Fox, Chris, Cheston, Richard, Turner, David, Clark, Allan, Dodd, Emily, Khoo, Mary-Ellen, Gray, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27965827
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0049-z
_version_ 1782474780140634112
author Nolan, Fiona M.
Fox, Chris
Cheston, Richard
Turner, David
Clark, Allan
Dodd, Emily
Khoo, Mary-Ellen
Gray, Richard
author_facet Nolan, Fiona M.
Fox, Chris
Cheston, Richard
Turner, David
Clark, Allan
Dodd, Emily
Khoo, Mary-Ellen
Gray, Richard
author_sort Nolan, Fiona M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Protected engagement time (PET) is a concept of managing staff time on mental health inpatient wards with the aim of increasing staff and patient interaction. Despite apparent widespread use of PET, there remains a dearth of evidence as to how it is implemented and whether it carries benefits for staff or patients. This protocol describes a study which is being carried out on mental health wards caring for older adults (aged over 65) in England. The study shares a large proportion of the procedures, measures and study team membership of a recently completed investigation of the impact of PET in adult acute mental health wards. The study aims to identify prevalence and components of PET to construct a model for the intervention, in addition to testing the feasibility of the measures and procedures in preparation for a randomised trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The study comprises four modules and uses a mixed methods approach. Module 1 involves mapping all inpatient wards in England which provide care for older adults, including those with dementia, ascertaining how many of these provide PET and in what way. Module 2 uses a prospective cohort method to compare five older adult mental health wards that use PET with five that do not across three National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust sites. The comparison comprises questionnaires, observation tools and routinely collected clinical service data and combines validated measures with questions developed specifically for the study. Module 3 entails an in-depth case study evaluation of three of the participating PET wards (one from each NHS Trust site) using semi-structured interviews with patients, carers and staff. Module 4 describes the development of a model and fidelity scale for PET using the information derived from the other modules with a working group of patients, carers and staff. DISCUSSION: This is a feasibility study to test the application of the measures and methods in inpatient wards for older adults and develop a draft model for the intervention. The next stage will prospectively involve testing of the model and fidelity scale in randomised conditions to provide evidence for the effectiveness of PET as an intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN31919196
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5153860
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51538602016-12-13 A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol Nolan, Fiona M. Fox, Chris Cheston, Richard Turner, David Clark, Allan Dodd, Emily Khoo, Mary-Ellen Gray, Richard Pilot Feasibility Stud Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Protected engagement time (PET) is a concept of managing staff time on mental health inpatient wards with the aim of increasing staff and patient interaction. Despite apparent widespread use of PET, there remains a dearth of evidence as to how it is implemented and whether it carries benefits for staff or patients. This protocol describes a study which is being carried out on mental health wards caring for older adults (aged over 65) in England. The study shares a large proportion of the procedures, measures and study team membership of a recently completed investigation of the impact of PET in adult acute mental health wards. The study aims to identify prevalence and components of PET to construct a model for the intervention, in addition to testing the feasibility of the measures and procedures in preparation for a randomised trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The study comprises four modules and uses a mixed methods approach. Module 1 involves mapping all inpatient wards in England which provide care for older adults, including those with dementia, ascertaining how many of these provide PET and in what way. Module 2 uses a prospective cohort method to compare five older adult mental health wards that use PET with five that do not across three National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust sites. The comparison comprises questionnaires, observation tools and routinely collected clinical service data and combines validated measures with questions developed specifically for the study. Module 3 entails an in-depth case study evaluation of three of the participating PET wards (one from each NHS Trust site) using semi-structured interviews with patients, carers and staff. Module 4 describes the development of a model and fidelity scale for PET using the information derived from the other modules with a working group of patients, carers and staff. DISCUSSION: This is a feasibility study to test the application of the measures and methods in inpatient wards for older adults and develop a draft model for the intervention. The next stage will prospectively involve testing of the model and fidelity scale in randomised conditions to provide evidence for the effectiveness of PET as an intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN31919196 BioMed Central 2016-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5153860/ /pubmed/27965827 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0049-z Text en © Nolan et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Nolan, Fiona M.
Fox, Chris
Cheston, Richard
Turner, David
Clark, Allan
Dodd, Emily
Khoo, Mary-Ellen
Gray, Richard
A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
title A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
title_full A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
title_fullStr A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
title_full_unstemmed A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
title_short A feasibility study comparing UK older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
title_sort feasibility study comparing uk older adult mental health inpatient wards which use protected engagement time with other wards which do not: study protocol
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27965827
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0049-z
work_keys_str_mv AT nolanfionam afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT foxchris afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT chestonrichard afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT turnerdavid afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT clarkallan afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT doddemily afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT khoomaryellen afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT grayrichard afeasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT nolanfionam feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT foxchris feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT chestonrichard feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT turnerdavid feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT clarkallan feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT doddemily feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT khoomaryellen feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol
AT grayrichard feasibilitystudycomparingukolderadultmentalhealthinpatientwardswhichuseprotectedengagementtimewithotherwardswhichdonotstudyprotocol