Search Results

< Back This is a Title 03 This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. You can create as many collections as you need. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own, or import content from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, videos and more. You can also collect and store information from your site visitors using input elements like custom forms and fields. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. Preview your site to check that all your elements are displaying content from the right collection fields. Previous Next

e57a4343-00e9-4e08-9056-d084e47c8870 Reframing responsibility through public empowerment: proposing the ‘FoodEnviroScan’ app to unmask unfair environmental cues influencing poor diets Team Dr Nestor Serrano-Fuentes. Senior Research Fellow. School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton. Dr Lyn Ellett. Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology. School of Psychology. University of Southampton. Prof Mari Carmen Portillo. Professor of Long-Term Conditions. School of Health Sciences University of Southampton. Prof Janis Baird. Professor of Public Health and Epidemiology, MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton. Prof Christina Vogel. Deputy Director, Centre for Food Policy City, University of London. Partners Peter Rhodes (potential support). Senior Programme Manager, Industry and Innovations (AHSN). Jessica Berry (potential support). Personalised Care Programme (ICS). Dr Alexandra Mant (potential support). Institute for Life Sciences Collaboration Manager at the University of Southampton. Dr Lindsay Welch. Clinical associate professor at the University of Bournemouth. Previous Program Lead Health Inequalities (Health Innovation Wessex) Starts: 27th February 2023 Ends: 30th September 2024 Summary Our cities have changed a lot since the 1960s. One of the biggest changes is that there are now a lot more places to buy unhealthy fast food and sugary drinks, like takeaway shops. The food and drink companies have also used clever marketing strategies so we buy more of their products. Some of their strategies are hard to spot, but they have impacted people living in poorer areas the most. For example, these people might see a lot more ads and deals for fast food and junk food around where they live and work. Research shows that the best way to improve our diets is to have stronger rules for how the food industry is allowed to advertise to us. But currently there are not many policies like this. And there is not much public support for stronger rules either. That is because many people still think it's up to them alone to eat healthily. We want to talk to the public to discuss how we can get more public attention on the power big food companies have. We also want to talk about what else we as a society can do to put more pressure on the food industry to change. We are also interested in whether new technologies could help with these goals.

< Back This is a Title 02 This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content. Want to view and manage all your collections? Click on the Content Manager button in the Add panel on the left. Here, you can make changes to your content, add new fields, create dynamic pages and more. You can create as many collections as you need. Your collection is already set up for you with fields and content. Add your own, or import content from a CSV file. Add fields for any type of content you want to display, such as rich text, images, videos and more. You can also collect and store information from your site visitors using input elements like custom forms and fields. Be sure to click Sync after making changes in a collection, so visitors can see your newest content on your live site. Preview your site to check that all your elements are displaying content from the right collection fields. Previous Next

1c23cf8b-3886-4a98-9ca5-1588bcdda392 ADOPTED PROJECT: Development of a decision aid for offloading device selection for people with diabetic foot ulceration ADOPTED PROJECT: Development of a decision aid for offloading device selection for people with diabetic foot ulceration Principal Investigator: Dr Lindsey Cherry , Associate Professor University of Southampton Research team: Dr Emma Cowley, University of Southampton; Dr Michael Backhouse, Associate Professor, University of Warwick; Dr Kate Lippiet, University of Southampton & Wessex Cancer Alliance Partners: University of Southampton & Solent NHS Trust, University of Warwick & Wessex Cancer Alliance Lay Summary: We aim to create a visual tool, called a decision aid (DA). A DA shows the good and bad points for different treatment options. A DA can help people choose the best treatment for them. Helping people choose their treatment can make them healthier and happier in the longer term. We also aim to find out what is needed to support clinicians to use the DA.Treatments to help diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) heal include a plaster cast or removeable boot. Both treatments have good and bad points. For example, we know casts tend to heal DFUs faster than boots, but you cannot drive with them. People can drive with a boot. Driving may be a priority for some people, to collect children or get to work, but healing quickly could be a priority for others. Aim: To develop a shared decision aid (DA) for offloading device selection for people with diabetic foot ulceration; A secondary aim is to explore workforce willingness, confidence, and competence to use DAs and shared decision-making. Methods: Two parallel workstreams (WS) will be completed. WS1 DA development will be undertaken in accordance with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The DA will likely contain information about a) the decision to be made, b) option risks and benefits, c) related values and d) decision next steps. WS2 Workforce readiness will be evaluated through a) scoping literature review, b) national workforce survey, and c) stakeholder focus group about workforce capability development, training needs, and implementation recommendations. Expected outcomes: WS1 will produce a decision aid and the consolidation and generation of new partnerships ready for full trial evaluation. WS2 will identify priority areas to support workforce implementation of shared decision-making and DAs. This programme addresses multiple JLA priorities including PSP1, PSP2, PSP5 and PSP9. Additional benefits include research capacity growth in PSP areas through subsequent national multi-centre trial, with routes to support Advanced Clinical Practice and an embedded PhD studentship.

Project Outputs Project Outputs This domain helps you consider the deliverables or what is to be produced as a result of your project. These are the project outputs . Outputs can be singular or multiple and include any of the following: policy guideline(s), innovation, intervention, website or a tool. Adoption and Spread Project Outputs Buy-in and Engagement Fit with Health and Social Care Systems Alignment with Health and Social Care Priorities Outcomes and Impact Project Outputs Buy-in and Engagement Fit with Health and Social Care Systems Alignment with Health and Social Care Priorities Outcomes and Impact Adoption and Spread Checklist, webinar and resources Quick links: Case study “ As we had early discussions t o identify our project outputs within our team, we were able to plan resources required to support this. For example, we knew that one of our key outputs would be a website to be made freely available to all. However, as we engaged with our wider networks of stake holders across d ifferent care homes, we realised that some also expressed interest in having a printed training resource which they could share with colleagues when hosting in-person workshops . This presented a challenge initially as we had not costed for the development of these printed materials. However, as we were still at an early stage of the project, we were able to apply for a small grant which helped accommodate these costs. Stakeholder involvement was invaluable to ensuring that our project outputs matched their needs . We will take this learning forward in future projects and consult with a range of stakeholders initially. This will help to support our project outputs to be available and accessible in formats which best fit the needs of those using them.” Person-centred care training resource for care homes project (PCCP) Take away tips Early engagement with stakeholders about what project outputs are helpful for them can enhance their longer-term value and utility Early engagement also ensures that resources can be prioritised and financially supported

Sandra Bartolomeu Pires is a Research Sister in Neurodegenerative diseases at University Hospital Southampton and PhD Candidate at the University of Southampton < Back Don't do it! Sandra Bartolomeu Pires Sandra Bartolomeu Pires is a Research Sister in Neurodegenerative diseases at University Hospital Southampton and PhD Candidate at the University of Southampton From 2018 to 2020 I cowboyed through fellowships and awards, trying to keep a percentage of my time academically focused, in pursuit of the Holy Grail – PhD funding. These varied from 9% to 50% with interim periods of zero (keeping the work going, though). “I just need some funding, my foot in, then I will make it work”. In September 2020, alleluia, PhD scholarship secured! I made a happy dance while holding my 3-year-old daughter and she laughed loudly without understanding why mummy was making such a fuss over a phone call (now that I think about it, she was probably just mocking my lack of dance skills…). I couldn’t believe it. Starting September I would be a PhD student at the University of Southampton! “So how does that work Sandra?”. Well, I get 50% of my time funded to do the PhD. I have funding for four years. “So you need to do a part-time PhD in four years, with a toddler, no family support... (*crickets chirping*) If someone can do it, that person is you!” “Do you have any advice before I start? Something you wished you knew from the beginning?” “Don’t do it”. I have heard this multiple times. Don’t do it; Why would you do it?; Have all your children first, let them go through school, and then do it. Oh please, what do you people know about this? Well, people that are now postdocs and know the pits of despair very well. I really appreciate their advice. They took the time to meet me, share their experience with me, and advise me when I asked for it. But then Seinfeld’s voice in my head “I am special, my mother was right” (yes, I say this joke too many times). “So you need to do a part-time PhD in four years, with a toddler, no family support... If someone can do it that person is you!”“Do you have any advice before I start? Something you wished you knew from the beginning?”“Don’t do it” Our lovely Jamie Stevenson, from the ARC Wessex communications team, challenged us to write how we (PhD scholars) feel in the beginning, and then see how the PhD relationship evolves through the years. The most prevalent thought is “I am not good enough.” – There are plenty of resources and podcasts on imposter syndrome, it’s a big thing, go look it up. My advice on this is something Hugh Kearns said: focus on facts, not feelings. One really needs to be able to balance those internal voices to juggle the daily pressures and workload. This year was more challenging than I could have predicted, worse than the people that had advised me imagined. And I still had it so much easier than many people. In the first COVID wave I paused my SHAPE award, which was so hard to get, to go back full-time clinically. How could I focus knowing all that was happening? So that meant preparing the ARC PhD funding application in my own time, while working full-time in COVID research. In the second wave I thought “Let’s make a tradition out of this!”, deciding to apply for a NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship. A lot of my funded PhD time went into preparing this Everest application (while clinically I was once again moved to COVID research but this time inpatients). March was horrible. Deaths from young patients, deaths from colleagues, working clinically in an area out of my comfort zone, and this huge application, the cherry on top of the cake. I was broken and needed help. My supervisors were incredibly supportive, and the Staff helpline was my lifeline. Then, stomach pain. Daily, unable to eat properly without feeling uncomfortable (I LOVE FOOD!!). “That is stress!”. My reply was “I always had a stressful life and never had stomach pain”. Thinking back, it probably is “just” stress. I mean, I am not 20 anymore… After telling my husband “I have sent you an email with my login details, if I end up in the resus room (wouldn’t be the first time), please submit the application. Otherwise, I will come back to haunt you!” I actually managed to submit the application, at 2am. At 9am, all the kind souls that were my signatories and participatories, had signed (Thank you so much!) and off I went to Bournemouth beach with my mother and sister, who had travelled in the middle of a pandemic to see us, and whom I had barely laid eyes on. Freedom Day, 11th June (Sorry, Boris!). I could really have used some holidays then - or an induced coma for a week - but no can do. Diving back into my systematic literature review and thanking my past self for keeping good records. I am now past my first viva/First PhD review progression, straight out of the oven (23rd July 2021) and received overwhelming positive feedback “You seem to think you are delayed Sandra, but you are excelling at the PhD” (I hope the assessor and the supervisors didn’t notice my watery eyes). I write this as I am flying to Portugal to see my lovely family. My daughter and husband have been there for a week. So on the day of my viva I was actually alone all day. Not to worry though, plenty of wine in Portugal (Omeprazole and Rennie in the bag) and time to celebrate with those who support me most on this crazy journey. How was this first academic year? It was absolutely amazing! So (SO) hard, but thrilling, challenging, just the way I like it (I am sure it is some disease and I am just going undiagnosed all these years). The taste of victory is addictive: pressing that “Submit” button, reading my assessor’s report on PGR Tracker, having my long surname in papers (soon to come), the validation from my patient population, my supervisors proud of me, and the hope of making change happen for the best care of patients and carers. I am so excited for the next steps. Knowing that I pushed my boundaries, I am doing what I love, working towards a career that I dream of, surrounded by an incredible support network. For now, out of office “ON” on Hospital and Uni accounts. Breaks are important and I have earned my two weeks off. Let’s see what year 2 brings 😉 “I have sent you an email with my login details, if I end up in the resus room (wouldn’t be the first time), please submit the application. Otherwise, I will come back to haunt you!” Previous Next

ARC Wessex Early Career Researchers - Cara Black, Naomi Leonard, Olivia Taylor and Annabelle Prescott < Back Engaging Children and Young People in Research Community of Practice Inaugural Meeting ARC Wessex Early Career Researchers - Cara Black, Naomi Leonard, Olivia Taylor and Annabelle Prescott September 2023, University of York, UK There is a knowledge gap in our understanding about approaches and methods for meaningfully involving and engaging with children and young people in matters and decisions that impact on them. We went to a two-day meeting at the University of York with researchers from the University of York, Bristol, Hertfordshire, Southampton and Auckland, NZ as well as a representative from the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders. This group came together to form an international Community of Practice (CoP), with the goal of sharing learning, methods, and experience for effective ways to engage young people. It also highlighted the wide variety of opportunities for putting children and young people at the heart of research, decision making and advocacy for their mental health and well-being. Here are our reflections as early career researchers (ECRs) from the meeting: What did we gain from the meeting? We thoroughly enjoyed being with professionals who have expertise in research for youth health, wellbeing, mental health, and youth advocacy. We gained an understanding of what exactly a community of practice is, listened to the experiences of all members and contributed to the conversations. It was lovely to hear international voices and get to exchange creative ideas for involving young people and encouraging them to share their ideas, as well as learning a great deal about youth engagement in general. What were our highlights? Hearing from the Healthy Mind Apprentices; Chloe, Kenzie, Lauren & Phoebe who are a group of young people passionate about mental health who work across Bradford and Craven to support young people, communities and schools with their health and wellbeing. They reflected on their time working with Y-MHESH and spoke about what their apprenticeship meant to them and what they have learned along the way. They shared with us that the problem is not that young people don’t have a voice; they instead believe that decision makers are not listening. Therefore, it was interesting to hear that we need to take necessary steps to ensure ‘decision makers’ are able and willing to share the decision-making power with young people. Overall being involved in the CoP was positive, as we had the opportunity to be involved in discussions with leaders in the field. Often, we can become ‘stuck’ in our ideas, so having the opportunity to present new ideas and challenge our Community of Practice to think in novel ways which align with the realities for children and young people was a highlight for sure. What could have been improved? It might have been more beneficial for our CoP group if the Healthy Mind Apprentices joined us for longer, as these fabulous young people reminded us that it is about listening and valuing meaningful involvement of children and young people, so it would have been great to have more youth representation in our own decision-making processes. Youth voices should be included throughout our CoP meetings, whether this be the Healthy Mind apprentices or groups of different young people. One of the main challenges in this area is that when coproduction and research is done with young people, they often don’t see the outputs they have created or get to feel the impact of their work before they move. It’s important we consider this when setting out to do co-production work or research with children and young people. What are the advantages of involving early career researchers in research and in the CoP? We provide a fresh perspective on topical issues today and have greater freedom to think beyond our specialty areas. This gives us the ability to consider the broader picture at an international or societal level and bridge the gap between young people and established researchers, as we understand the points of view and needs of young people, while simultaneously understanding research processes. This meeting was a great way to solidify the learning from the CoP and focus us on a clear path forward to best support the goals of children and young people in research. Reflections Reflections on public engagement and engagement in research for young people From the perspective of an ECR, it seems extremely important that “brand image” and visibility are recognised by senior management at universities and funders at research centers. Engaging well with the public, in this case, young people, both heightens visibility and reinforces brand image, which is why Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) work with young people within schools, young people’s PPI groups and other youth groups, including the Healthy Mind Apprenticeship scheme, is so valuable. Although, it can be difficult to get PPIE work funded. The purpose of PPIE work is to get people’s views on what needs to be researched and what is important to them, so to do this after a project has been decided defeats the purpose. Young people form part of our communities, but their inputs have been historically overlooked as unimportant or uninformed. Yet, some of the most valuable insights come from our young people, because at the end of the day this is their reality, and they live it every day. It is therefore crucial to have young people be meaningfully engaged so research, funding and decisions are aligned with what people want and need – and children and young people should be no exception. If we consider and give power to the voices of young people, then perhaps we can work to meaningfully elevate the health and wellbeing of entire future communities. So with that, we leave you with this whakatauki (Māori proverb). Mā whero, mā pango ka oti ai te mahi With red and black the work will be complete Previous Next

8d1b2f3a-906f-4fe9-8d9a-bf4679c7d6ec COMPLETED: StOP UTI project: Strategies in older people's care settings to prevent infection Background Urinary tract infection is more common in older people living in care homes but can be difficult to recognise. This can lead to overuse of antibiotics and may result in antibiotic-resistant infection and hospital admission. We wanted to find out what can work in care homes to prevent and recognise UTI and what support care home staff need to enable safe care for all residents. What we did We reviewed evidence from a range of sources, including research studies and improvement projects. We also asked care home staff, residents, family carers and healthcare professionals about their experiences. We combined these experiences and ideas with the evidence we found from published literature to develop an understanding of what needs to happen in care homes for older people to prevent and recognise UTI. What we found out What difference will this make? UTI can be prevented by embedding prevention activities in care routines: ensuring residents are hydrated ensuring residents with recurrent UTI are managed actively with preventative treatment avoiding the use of urinary catheters wherever possible Unnecessary antibiotic use can be avoided by: involving the whole care team, resident and family in recognising UTI using active monitoring when there is uncertainty about UTI supporting care staff to develop the skills to accurately recognise UTI using tools that support decision-making and communication across the wider care team Safe care for each resident can be achieved when: care staff receive education that is contextualised to their role and helps them to prioritise and deliver person-centred care care home managers are committed to supporting the delivery of best practice commissioners and regulators promote UTI prevention and recognition as a priority area for care homes Why is this important? Our findings suggest ways that care home providers and policy makers can support the prevention and recognition of UTI in the care of older people living in care homes. A system-wide approach is vital to enable care home managers and their staff to prioritise UTI prevention and recognition as part of person-centred care. At policy level, there is a need to integrate UTI prevention with diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship and to unify the content of education and decision-support resources so that care staff can see the value of their role in prevention as well as supporting diagnosis and treatment of UTI. What next? Our research is the start of a process of understanding what works in care home settings and will identify where further research is needed. A report, summary and articles provide practical examples and recommendations relevant to care home staff, care home managers, researchers, educators, carers and relatives for use to improve the prevention and recognition of UTI in older people’s long-term care and to plan further research to investigate them. We are turning our findings into a range of different resources and digital communications, with input from experts who support the adoption and spread of innovation, for sharing via care home networks and associations. Publications Realist synthesis protocol for understanding which strategies are effective to prevent urinary tract infection in older people in care homes Preventing urinary tract infection in older people living in care homes: the ‘StOP UTI’ realist synthesis | BMJ Quality & Safety Strategies for older people living in care homes to prevent urinary tract infection: the StOP UTI realist synthesis | NIHR Journals Library Link to University of Southampton site Research team: • Dr Jacqui Prieto, Joint Chief Investigator, University of Southampton • Professor Heather Loveday, Joint Chief Investigator, University of West London • Professor Jennie Wilson, Co-investigator, University of West London • Mrs Alison Tingle, Co-investigator, University of West London • Mrs Emily Cooper, Co-investigator, UK Health Security Agency • Dr Melanie Handley, Co-investigator, University of Hertfordshire • Professor Jo Rycroft-Malone, Co-investigator, University of Lancaster • Dr Lynne Williams, Co-investigator, Bangor University • Mrs Jennifer Bostock, Co-investigator, Patient and public involvement • Lois Woods, Information Specialist, University of Southampton • Simon Briscoe, Information Specialist, University of Exeter • Jemima Kakpa, Research assistant, University of Southampton • Christine Logan, Administrative assistant, University of West London Project Advisory Group: • Jennifer Bostock (Chair) • Professor Lona Mody • Mr Mark Stott • Dr Leah Jones • Mrs Susan Bennett • Mr James McMahon • Mrs Annabelle Stigwood • Mrs Anita Astles

65894af6-1d61-4f27-8b10-ff3b90451d8b COMPLETED: Safer Nursing Care Tool and nurse staffing requirements What did we learn We found that for some wards using the Safer Nursing Care Tool (SNCT) gives a good estimate of the number of nursing staff needed. However, for other wards, relying on the estimate provided by this tool without further thought could lead to unsafe staffing levels for different reasons. For example, the current guidance recommends setting staffing levels to meet the average requirement, but following this logic, 18 wards in the three Trusts would often have been short-staffed. Also, a quarter of wards needed a sample of over 182 days to estimate the number of staff needed precisely, when the current recommendation is 20 days. Nursing workforce leaders at the three Trusts suggested characteristics of wards where the tool performed least well, for instance, high patient throughput and differences in workload between mornings and evenings. What difference can this new knowledge make? This project and the previous related project (NIHR-funded study https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08160 ) led to a direct collaboration with NHS England and NHS Improvement and an invitation to work with them to further develop and update the guidance on using the Safer Nursing Care Tool. The team have spoken about the research findings and implications at a series of NHS Improvement safe staffing fellows training events. They have co-developed a set of resources to help nurses plan staffing. Impact has been achieved through this research shaping revised guidelines published by NHS England and NHS Improvement on using the SNCT in combination with professional judgement to determine nurse staffing requirements. We were invited to help facilitate workshops to co-develop a template for nurses to record their professional judgements. We are also in early-stage discussions with hospital managers in Greece about how the professional judgement framework might be relevant there, as well as discussions about how to achieve wider reach through the World Health Organization website. Why is this important? The professional judgement framework we developed as a result of these projects will benefit nurses, who use this tool nationally, by giving them concrete guidance on issues to consider when deciding staffing levels. It will benefit patients admitted to inpatient wards, through better matching of staffing levels to demand. Having too few nursing staff is related to adverse effects for patients (more deaths, more falls, longer stays in hospital), staff (turnover, sickness) and organisations (higher costs from temporary staff to fill gaps). Diagram 1 We presented the list of wards which were flagged as having overall poor fit to three nursing workforce leaders Some of the common factors they suggested as potential reasons for poor fit are shown here above. They highlighted wards with large morning-evening differences in staffing requirements (based on acuity-dependency ratings) may be among those where the tool fits least well. For wards that are particularly small or large, it is possible that the number generated by the SNCT is less likely to be sufficient to maintain minimum registered nurse levels when rostering staff to shifts. They highlighted some ward characteristics that mean the SNCT multipliers, as they are applied, may underestimate the true workload. These were high patient turnover, older patient population, cancer infusion/device activity. a high proportion of patients requiring one-to-one care AKA enhanced care/specialling. The factors suggested are on the whole congruent with published evidence What next? Our next step is conducting research predicting demand for nursing staff which we plan will also lead to tools and resources to guide decision-making around staffing. Research team: • Professor Peter Griffiths, Chair of Health Services, University of Southampton • Rosemary Chable, Deputy Director of Nursing, Education & Workforce, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust • Nicky Sinden, Head of Nursing Workforce, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust • Tracy Moran, Lead Nurse for Nursing Workforce, Education & Practice, Poole Hospital NHS Trust Project partners: • University of Southampton • University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust • Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust • Poole Hospital NHS Trust More information Evi dence Brief Publication 24_11_Professional_Judgement_Staffing_Eprints[16] .pdf Download PDF • 186KB Publications: Saville, Christina and Griffiths, Peter (2021) Ward staffing guided by a patient classification system: A multi-criteria analysis of “fit” in three acute hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management, 29 (7), 2260-2269. ( doi:10.1111/jonm.13341 ). Saville C, Griffiths P, Casey A, Chable R, Chapman H, Radford M, and Watts N (2023) Professional Judgement Framework, doi: 10.5258/SOTON/P1102 University of Southampton ( https://doi.org/10.5258/SOTON/P1102 ) Saville, Christina and Griffiths, Peter , Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé and Fogg, Carole (eds.) (2023) Introducing the Professional Judgement Framework to guide nurse staffing decisions (Evidence Brief, 24) 2pp. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/484412 Saville, Christina and Griffiths, Peter , Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé and Fogg, Carole (eds.) (2024) Nurse staffing decisions: the Professional Judgement Framework. Nursing Times, 120 (7). https://www.nursingtimes.net/c...4-06-2024/ The Safer Nursing Care Tool as a guide to nurse staffing requirements on hospital wards: observational and modelling study ( nihr.ac.uk ) Video: Computer simulation what and why? https://sho.co/1E34T The importance of professional judgement in nurse staffing decisions https://southampton.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=87fcb9bb-e9dc-4b43-8377-acb700e3bec2 Here is the orginal research outline Identifying wards for which the Safer Nursing Care Tool is appropriate for assessing nurse staffing requirements Principal Investigator: Dr Christina Saville Team members: Dr Christina Saville (Research Fellow, University of Southampton) Professor Peter Griffiths (Chair of Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton), Rosemary Chable RN (Deputy Director of Nursing, Education & Workforce, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust) Ms Nicky Sinden (Head of Nursing Workforce at Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust), Tracy Moran (Lead Nurse for Nursing Workforce, Education & Practice, Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust) Start: 1 December 2019 End: 1 August 2020 Partners: University of Southampton, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Lay summary It is important to have enough qualified (registered) nurses looking after patients staying on hospital wards, because having too few is associated with worse patient care and more patient deaths. On the other hand, there are extreme shortages of nurses, so having “too many” on a ward could be considered a waste. The Safer Nursing Care Tool is used in many hospital wards in England to work out the number of nursing staff (including nursing assistants) needed. However, a recent study showed that it is more suitable on some wards than on others. For example, we found that factors not accounted for in the tool, e.g. whether a ward is surgical or medical, and the proportion of single rooms, also affected professional judgement of whether staffing was adequate. Aim This study aims to understand which ward characteristics mean that the Safer Nursing Care Tool gives a good estimate of the nursing staff required, and which ward characteristics mean that the number might need to be adjusted or further considered by taking into account the expertise of ward leaders. It also aims, if possible, to provide some general rules or an add-on tool to help nursing managers with setting staffing levels. Methods We will analyse the data that were collected for a previous study in a different way. This time we will focus on differences between wards rather than hospitals. We will use analytical techniques for finding patterns in data to identify similar wards. In our team we have experienced leaders in nursing who will provide expert professional insights into ward characteristics. Patient, public and community involvement and sharing results We will involve nursing managers in the study because they are the potential users of any rules or tools we develop. We plan to develop a resource (rules or a tool) for nursing ward managers and to run a workshop to test use of this resource. We plan to write one academic paper about what we find out. We also can share the plans for this with lay members from the PPI group as appropriate. We are developing a smaller user group across Workforce and Frailty and Older People teams.

Research Fellow < Back Francesca Zecchinato Research Fellow Workforce & Health Systems Francesca Zecchinato is a recently appointed Research Fellow within the NIHR ARC Wessex Mental Health Hub at the University of Southampton. In her current role, she is working on a mixed-methods project to identify knowledge gaps among paramedics in managing patients presenting mental health conditions. This work aims to enhance the quality of mental health care provided to patients, improve patient experiences, and offer better support for paramedics. Francesca holds a BSc in Cognitive Psychology and Psychobiology (cum laude) and a MSc in Clinical Psychology (cum laude) from the University of Padova (Italy). She has completed her PhD at the Centre for Innovation in Mental Health, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, funded by the ESRC South Coast DTP and focused on the risk posed by parental anxiety to their children and on strategies to promote the mental health of children with anxious parents. Building on her previous research exploring the needs of parents with mental illness and how services can support their children’s mental health, Francesca’s work continues to focus on understanding the needs of individuals experiencing mental health difficulties and identifying evidence-based strategies to improve care delivery. Francesca uses both quantitative and qualitative methods in her research and poses great value in the involvement of experts by experience (via Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement) throughout the research process. Previous Next

54d3d6a4-2f97-4fa8-8c83-e41613f3b35d COMPLETED: Co-POWeR - Consortium on Practices of Wellbeing and Resilience in BAME Families and Communities Principal Investigator: Professor Iyiola Solanke, University of Leeds Team: Professor Maria Stokes, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton; Professor Sabu Padmadas, School of Economic, Social & Political Sciences, University of Southampton; Professor Monica Lakhanpaul, Institute of Child Health, University College London; Professor Claudia Bernard, Professor of Social Work. Department Social, Therapeutic and Community Studies, Goldsmiths College; Professor Shirin Rai, Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick; Professor Raminder Kaur, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex; Professor Gargi Bhattacharyya, Law and Social Sciences, University of East London; Professor Florence Ayisi, Faculty of Creative Industries, University of South Wales; Professor Anna Gupta, Department of Social Work, Royal Holloway, University of London. Duration: 18 months Summary Two viruses - COVID-19 and discrimination - are currently killing in the UK (Solanke 2020), especially within BAMEFC who are hardest hit. Survivors face ongoing damage to wellbeing and resilience, in terms of physical and mental health as well as social, cultural and economic (non-medical) consequences. Psychosocial (ADCS 2020; The Children's Society 2020)/ physical trauma of those diseased and deceased, disproportionate job-loss (Hu 2020) multigenerational housing, disrupted care chains (Rai 2016) lack of access to culture, education and exercise, poor nutrition, 'over-policing' (BigBrotherWatch 2020) hit BAMEFC severely. Local 'lockdowns' illustrate how easily BAMEFC become subject to stigmatization and discrimination through 'mis-infodemics' (IOM 2020). The impact of these viruses cause long-term poor outcomes. While systemic deficiencies have stimulated BAMEFC agency, producing solidarity under emergency, BAMEFC vulnerability remains, requiring official support. The issues are complex thus we focus on the interlinked and 'intersectional nature of forms of exclusion and disadvantage', operationalised through the idea of a 'cycle of wellbeing and resilience' (CWAR) which recognises how COVID-19 places significant stress upon BAMEFC structures and the impact of COVID-19 and discrimination on different BAMEFC cohorts across the UK, in whose lives existing health inequalities are compounded by a myriad of structural inequalities. Given the prevalence of multi-generational households, BAMEFC are likely to experience these as a complex of jostling over-lapping stressors: over-policed unemployed young adults are more likely to live with keyworkers using public transport to attend jobs in the front line, serving elders as formal/informal carers, neglecting their health thus exacerbating co-morbidities and struggling to feed children who are unable to attend school, resulting in nutritional and digital deprivation. Historical research shows race/class dimensions to national emergencies (e.g. Hurricane Katrina) but most research focuses on the COVID-19 experience of white families/communities. Co-POWeR recommendations will emerge from culturally and racially sensitive social science research on wellbeing and resilience providing context as an essential strand for the success of biomedical and policy interventions (e.g. vaccines, mass testing). We will enhance official decision making through strengthening cultural competence in ongoing responses to COVID-19 thereby maximizing success of national strategy. Evidenced recommendations will enable official mitigation of disproportionate damage to wellbeing and resilience in BAMEFC. Empowerment is a core consortium value. Supporting UKRI goals for an inclusive research culture, we promote co-design and co-production to create a multi-disciplinary BAME research community spanning multi-cultural UK to inform policy. CO-POWeR investigates the synergistic effect on different age groups of challenges including policing, child welfare, caring and physical activity and nutrition. WP1 Emergency Powers investigates these vague powers to understand their impact on practices of wellbeing and resilience across BAMEFC. WP2 Children, Young People and their Families investigates implications for children/young people in BAMEFC who experience COVID-19 negatively due to disproportionate socio-economic and psychosocial impacts on their families and communities. WP3 Care, Caring and Carers investigates the interaction of care, caring and carers within BAMEFC to identify how to increase the wellbeing and resilience of older people, and paid and unpaid carers. WP4 Physical Activity and Nutrition investigates improving resilience and wellbeing by tackling vulnerability to underlying health conditions in BAMEFC. WP5 Empowering BAMEFC through Positive Narratives channels research from WP1-4 to coproduce fiction and non-fiction materials tackling the vulnerability of BAMEFC to 'misinfodemics'.

Job Vacancies Nothing new yet - but keep your eyes open and we'll let you know when something comes up