Search Results

Blogs Don't do it! Sandra Bartolomeu Pires Read more Thinker, sailor, author, physio Justin's journey so far.. Sandra Bartolomeu Pires Coming soon Veterans and Dementia - why routines can matter Caring for the person with dementia in hospital Read more Why Pat and Julia became involved in research Our journey in partnership Read more DEM-COMM researchers in Geneva Alzheimer's Europe Conference Read more World Social Work Day 2024 Realities of adult social care recruitment and retention Read more Improving nurses’ shift patterns - where do we start? What do nurses want? Read more Community of Practice Inaugural Meeting Engaging Children and Young People in Research Read more Weak enforcement of obesity regulations is undermining public health Chocolate at the checkout Read more "Prescribing and deprescribing is something we do to patients so their viewpoint does matter." PPI reflection on experience in attending an academic conference Read more S A L T to social worker How I found my way Read more PhD "I'm Lovin' It", Truth or Dare? Read more My interest in research came as a bit of a surprise. My journey into research Read more Mental Health Addressing underlying workforce challenges is essential to meet the nation’s mental health care needs Read more

Work lives and Wellbeing of Mental Health Nursing Workforce Lead applicant: Prof Jane Ball Co-applicants: Dr Gemma Simons, Prof David Baldwin, Prof Peter Griffiths, Dr Catherine Smith, Dr Emma Wadey Project Summary: Read project summary document (short summary) Read project summary document (long summary) We have a growing demand for mental health care and nurses are key to meting this demand. Each year roughly 10,000 NHS staff in England leave mental health services. 22% of nursing posts in mental health are vacant. Across the NHS it is recognised that work pressures impact on staff wellbeing, their ability to deliver care well, and likelihood of staff staying in the NHS. Despite being a priority area, most research related to nurses’ work engagement, retention and positive staff outcomes focuses on staff in general acute hospitals. Very little attention has been paid to mental health nurses’ work lives and wellbeing. Where will the research take place and who will it in involve This study focusses on mental health nurses. It will take place in Wessex but also includes desk research to collate workforce data, and a national survey of nurses in a range of mental health settings (community, hospitals, specialist units). The project will be led by the mental health workforce team at Southampton, in collaboration with the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Staff Support Hub, and the national lead for mental health nursing. An advisory group and patient public group will support the research. Aim & Design The aim is to examine the work lives and wellbeing of mental health nurses, in order to improve wellbeing and retention of these staff. This study will map what is known about the mental health nursing workforce, identify modifiable workplace factors that impact on staff experience, wellbeing and outcomes, and work collaboratively to identify solutions. The companion project will identify metrics that we can use to assess the wellbeing of the mental health workforce. Methods Labour market and workforce review - analyse data on the mental health nursing workforce, to create an overview. Survey nurses working in mental health (in Wessex NHS Trusts and a national sample). The questionnaire includes measures of: burnout, job satisfaction, intention to leave, workloads and practice environment. We will include open-ended questions so staff can give their views of work-life challenges, how they impact on their health, and what helps. The RCN Mental Health Forum will be main gateway for the national survey. Interview and focus groups with mental health nurses in Wessex NHS Trusts to explore experiences and views of working in mental health and issues related to wellbeing. These will be both before and after the survey (to help with survey design, and afterwards, to enrich interpretation). Coproduction workshop . Preliminary findings will be shared with a wide range of people with vested interest in, or responsibility for, the mental health workforce (e.g. nurses, managers, workforce leads) at a Wessex based co-production workshop, to identify actions and next steps. How will the findings inform improvements in population health and patient care? Services will run better and care quality will be improved if the workforce is healthy, happy and there are enough staff to provide care to the expected standards. Read all Mental Health Hub projects

c7fa8be0-4046-4345-a82a-ce4a38e05e07 COMPLETED: Social network facilitated engagement in people who are Homeless to address InEqualities in alcohol related Liver Disease - The SHIELD feasibility study Principle Investigator: Dr Ryan Buchanan, University of Southampton Team: Professor Salim Khakoo, University of Southampton, Dr Mark Wright, University of Southampton, Dr Yun J Kim, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. Starts: 1/4/22 Ends: 1/4/23 Aim: To develop and assess the feasibility of a social network-based intervention to engage people who are homeless and at risk of alcohol-related liver disease with Hepatology services Background: Mortality in people who are homeless (PWAH) is eight times higher than the general population and liver cirrhosis is the third commonest cause of death. PWAH infrequently access hospital based Hepatology services for assessment. Alcohol consumption is a socially perpetuated behaviour that is known to cluster within human social networks. What we did Recruitment continued from February to July 2022 of people who are homeless with high risk of alcohol dependence (AUDIT score) were identified in hostels and at a homeless day centre in Southampton. Those people were then asked to take part in tests and to refer thier drinking partners to the programme. They were given supermarket vouchers as an incentive. Those homeless people who took part, filled in a survey and took part in an interview. They also had a test on their liver and were referred to liver health services. What did we find out? Fifty six peoople took part, all were from homeless hostels. Almost 20% of the group had a new diagnosis of cirrhosis, and there was a link between people who had type 2 diabetes or lived house where alcohol was present. Homeless people with hazardous alcohol consumption are socially connected to others that drink dangerously. This programme of referral can identify undiagnosed disease, however, engagement via trusted staff may be just as effective. The study highlights the importance of working with community organisations supporting underserved populations to overcome inequalities in liver disease and manage multi-morbidity. What's next? Identifying liver disease in people experiencing homelessness is progress but… Sustaining underserved populations with liver health care services after a diagnosis is made is crucial – we have since been awarded a further NIHR research grant in investigate how to approach this problem: To find out more: Follow @liverchampions https://www.southampton.ac.uk/research/projects/nihr-liver-disease-research-partnerships-liver-champions

c011903f-4a36-460d-bf9c-db9cb8525bc0 Implementation and Evaluation of the Advanced Practice Research Toolkit Chief Investigator : Professor Kerry Gaskin, Birmingham City University Start Date: 1st October 2024 End Date: 31st March 2026 Summary Research is important for clinicians to improve treatments and care in the NHS. It is fundamental to what is called advanced practice. In 2023 the Advanced Practitioner Research Toolkit was developed for one NHS trust to help plan research activity. This novel toolkit, developed to meet the needs of advanced practitioners in one organisation, has gained interest nationally and internationally, with many positive comments received about how simple it is to use. We are currently designing a national evaluation to ascertain how the toolkit has been implemented and the impact it has had for advanced practitioners. It has the potential to improve research and engage more clinicians in research, leading to evidence based service improvement in the NHS. Anecdotally this pillar is perceived as being more difficult to achieve within the AP role due to a variety of barriers, including operational priorities, lack of time and lack of support. A common theme arising from communication with APs at GHNHSFT was ‘ not knowing how or where to get started’ , which informed development of the toolkit. The objectives of the APRT were to support APs to 'get started' with the research pillar; to encourage AP teams to consider their research priorities; to enable individual and team research objective setting and to aid appraisal discussions. The aim of this project is to improve Advanced Practitioners’ (AP) research capabilities, thereby enabling APs to achieve the research pillar of their role Objectives: · to develop a tailored strategy to implement the APRT · to test this implementation strategy in the context of healthcare organisations · to evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the APRT · to evaluate the impact of using the APRT for APs, AP Teams, Supervisors and Line-Managers · to report the findings and recommendations to inform future roll out across the NHS Development and Implementation of An Advanced Practice Research Toolkit - Birmingham City University

d9f3030e-3acc-4dc2-87bc-c01e65471d56 FLEXI: Falls management exercise programme led by NIHR ARC East Midlands working with NIHR ARC Greater Manchester and NIHR ARC South West Peninsula The FLEXI Study (FaLls EXercise Implementation) Lay Summary Falling can cause injury, pain, loss of confidence and independence. This is undesirable for the individual and their families, and places significant demands on health and social care services. Falls are not inevitable. By improving an individual’s strength and balance, alongside skills to help getting up from a fall (should this happen), the likelihood of a fall occurring or having damaging consequences, such as a long lie on the floor, can be minimised. The Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme is a group-based, face-to-face, six-month exercise programme specifically aimed at improving the strength and balance of people aged 65 and over. Research has shown that FaME results in fewer falls, improved confidence, and reduced fear-of-falling. Despite this, FaME is still not available everywhere across England. More needs to be understood about how best to increase its availability and ensure high quality delivery. To improve our understanding of this, we previously studied FaME’s set-up, delivery and quality in the East Midlands. We learnt a lot about how to get FaME running and showed that the programmes worked outside of a research setting. Using learning from the East Midlands, we developed a guide for implementing FaME called the implementation toolkit . This evidence-based toolkit contains all the information needed to set up and run a FaME programme, from making the initial business case to promoting it to participants. “FaME gives value. We know it's great value for money. We know it works in terms of it reduces falls, it increases physical activity, improves function, improves confidence. So many different benefits” What have we discovered? What works to foster (encourage) the adoption (initial decision to choose or take up something) and spread (roll out over a large area) of The Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme ? Using implementation frameworks, we successfully identified key barriers and enablers of adoption, implementation and spread of the Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme across the three localities. We found that the adoption, implementation and spread of FaME into community settings is complex and faces multiple health system challenges. In order for the FaME programme to be chosen as a community fall prevention intervention by commissioners, the programme must be able to demonstrate how successful it is in reducing falls for older adults (this is often determined by internal service evaluation). The programme was also required to fit the needs of those receiving the intervention, for example, FaME was primarily provided where there was a growing, aging population in need of fall prevention interventions. The spread of the FaME programme within organisations and into new regional areas was dependant on the input of commissioners passionate about fall prevention. Commissioners were required to support this roll out and provide funding, whilst also ensuring that there was a sufficient expert instructor workforce available to deliver FaME. The programmes were further required to be monitored regularly to evidence how successfully each programme was in reducing rate and risk of falls for older adults receiving the intervention. This was often the role of the postural stability instructor. Future funding is required to build in paid time for this to ensure that programme outcomes can support future funding cycles as often instructors are funded on an hourly basis. Does FaME work in the real world, how is it adapted (altered or changed), and does it reach the intended audience (older adults at risk of falling)? The collection of routine class data across three regions in England demonstrated that FaME was associated with benefits for participants at 12 and 24 weeks of the programme. Those benefits included improved balance and mobility and reduced falls. Programmes that provided higher ‘dose’ (i.e. ran over 24 weeks rather than 12 weeks) found that older adults experienced greater improvements in balance and mobility and were less likely to be concerned about falling again. What works to maintain the quality (the standard) and fidelity (how well something is reproduced) of the FaME programme over time? One of the key findings of the FLEXI study was that sites demonstrated a lack of clarity of essential components or key ingredients of the FaME intervention. This influenced both implementation and the providers' ability to assess adherence. The need for an understanding of central components was also clear in understanding delivery adherence and, therefore, the ability to evaluate programmes for their effectiveness. At the point of implementation, it became apparent that commissioners and managers are prioritising aspects of the intervention, with these decisions mediated by knowledge (or lack ) of the intervention, economic culture and organisational priorities. Adaptation of Evidence Based Interventions is key to improving their fit in a new context, however, essential components should not be adapted as intervention effectiveness cannot be guaranteed. We have proposed a new framework of implementation fidelity, that shows that mediators were key both in the implementation and delivery of complex interventions, as well as the mediating more of global mediators. Understanding of essential components is paramount at the point of implementation in order to ensure fidelity is implemented, maintained, and assessed. We suggest that complex interventions have a standard of evaluation (based on core components) and insights on fidelity/value negotiations within toolkits. We highlight that local fidelity evaluation is key to standardisation across programmes and delivery. What difference does this knowledge make? We have worked collaboratively with the Health Innovation Networks (HINs), local Integrated Care Systems and Combined Authorities to study ‘spread in action’. As a result, in one of our areas (Devon), where we have applied HINs spread methodology, we have seen a near trebling of available programmes from 13 to 41 (without intervention costs from the study). The study has highlighted the need for an increased frequency of local Quality Assurance to monitor delivery (instructors given the opportunity to observe each other deliver and provide constructive feedback). This has improved the quality of delivery. We have also hosted Greater Manchester-wide collaborative events, which resulted in quality improvement initiatives relating to FaME provision across GM and have established the National FaME Implementation Team (N-FIT) which is now primed and ready to work in new areas to support spread, using the methodologies we have tested. We are refining our implementation toolkit, which is ready to be tested in new areas and we want to refine and improve our quality assurance framework and costing tool using data collected from the study to support future FaME provision. What next? Our future planned work aims to address: Gaps in our understanding about what works to reach underserved communities in relation to FaME participation. We are currently working to explore the provision of FaME in ‘neighbourhood’ areas where there are good examples of reach into underserved groups (e.g. minority ethnic groups, male participants and socioeconomically deprived areas). We are conducting case-study research methodologies to further investigate this aim. The original FLEXI project highlighted that the monitoring and evaluation of programme outcomes are not captured well by local areas delivering programmes. We are, therefore, now developing a more structured evaluation framework for sites to use a legacy of the project. New data on the costs of implementing FaME have been determined and we would love to use these figures to update the national return on investment tool for FaME, developed by Public Health England and York University, to see if this improves the economic case for FaME roll-out. Lastly, we have also tested quality assurance tools for FaME and can see that improvements can be made to increase the tools’ internal and external validity. Moving forward, we would like to refine our preferred tool using academic methods to test this in new areas. FLEXI output links digital .pdf Download PDF • 616KB We would like to thank: Principle Investigator: Dr Elizabeth Orton Team members: Professor Denise Kendrick , Professor Stephen Timmons , Professor Carol Coupland , Professor Pip Logan , Professor Tahir Masud , Professor Vicki Goodwin , Professor Claire Hulme , Professor Chris Todd , Dr Helen Hawley-Hague , Dr Paul Wilson, Professor Dawn Skelton , Mrs Margaret Beetham Study researchers and study staff: Dr Fay Manning Dr Jodi Ventre Dr Aseel Mahmoud Dr Basharat Hussain Dr Michael Taylor Dr Grace Brough Dr Amar Shukla Dr Robert Vickers Ms Tina Patel Study public contributors: Mary Murphy Margaret Beetham PPIE Workshop participants from Greater Manchester, Devon and East Midlands Our Partners: NIHR ARC Greater Manchester , NIHR ARC South West Peninsula , Health Innovation South West , Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Health Innovation Manchester, Later Life Training, Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, Leicester-shire and Rutland Sport. Research sites: Devon Integrated Care System (ICS), Manchester combined authority, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICS, Derby and Derbyshire ICS Starts: 1/10/2021 Ends: 30/9/2025 Lay summary below Falling can cause injury, pain, loss of confidence and independence. This is undesirable for the individual and their families, and places significant demands on health and social care services. Falls are not inevitable. By improving an individual’s strength and balance, alongside skills to help getting up from a fall (should this happen), the likelihood of a fall occurring or having damaging consequences, such as a long lie on the floor, can be minimised. The Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme is a group-based, face-to-face, six-month exercise programme specifically aimed at improving the strength and balance of people aged 65 and over. Research has shown that FaME results in fewer falls, improved confidence, and reduced fear-of-falling. Despite this, FaME is still not available everywhere across England. More needs to be understood about how best to increase its availability and ensure high quality delivery. To improve our understanding of this, we previously studied FaME’s set-up, delivery and quality in the East Midlands. We learnt a lot about how to get FaME running and showed that the programmes worked outside of a research setting. Using learning from the East Midlands, we developed a guide for implementing FaME called the implementation toolkit . This evidence-based toolkit contains all the information needed to set up and run a FaME programme, from making the initial business case to promoting it to participants. We now want to use this toolkit to see if FaME can be made more available in two new, and very different, regions: Greater Manchester and Devon, and assess whether FaME works in these populations too, particularly if adaptations are made because of Coronavirus. We aim to: 1) Understand how best to increase availability of FaME in two new areas and assess the role that the toolkit plays in this. Using the toolkit we will work with local experts to promote FaME to organisations that decide what health services should be funded locally. 2) Study the delivery of FaME in the new areas and see if programmes work in these populations by measuring improvements in participating individuals. 3) Test ways of maintaining the quality of FaME programmes over time. Working with Later Life Training, a national not-for-profit organisation with expertise in FaME, we will measure the quality of programmes and test what works to make them better. We will use this information to improve the implementation toolkit and develop plans to support national implementation of FaME. Publications Factors influencing fall prevention programmes across three regions of the UK: the challenge of implementing and spreading the Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme in a complex landscape | Age and Ageing | Oxford Academic

Sorry This page is missing In March 2023 ARC Wessex moved to a new site Some of our old page links may not work Back to Homepage

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 Adoption and Spread Checklist, webinar and resources Quick links: Project Outputs This domain helps you consider aspects that could influence adoption and spread of the use of project outputs both within the organisation or setting where implementation takes places and to other health and social care organisations. Also, what factors may lead to sustainability and the value of such sustainability. No FAQs yet This category doesn't have any FAQs at the moment. Check back later or explore other categories. What should I consider for my project? 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 Case study Spread the Learning Project (SLP) "From the beginning we involved our charity partners as stakeholders and part of the co-production team because we were aware that they would have responsibility for implementing the intervention and therefore understood how it would work in practice. We also considered our skill sets and identified areas where we required additional support and reserved funds to pay for a web designer and negotiated some administrative support. We developed a core team of train the trainers to facilitate adoption and spread of the project and ensure consistency but with negotiated flexibility for partner organisations. We had not anticipated all the branding requirements involved which required consistency with our partner organisation. This involved negotiation and sign off from an executive level. Fortunately, because we had engaged with them from the initial stages , they provided a marketing representative to help us comply with their standards." Take away tips Think about what systems and processes will be required to support adoption of your project Consider how your project fits with other systems and how it will provide value and benefits in different systems

1810d0c8-e9bb-4a7c-9947-bbac48f4dd69 Mental Health, Workforce and Well-being Research Framework - ARC Collaboration More details on ARC Greater Manchester website What are we trying to do? The purpose of the document is to propose a pan National Insititue of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) workforce focused mental health and well-being research framework. The aim is for the research framework to serve as a reference point to: Create coherence and comparability across the research carried out by NIHR ARCs Reduce duplication of work to reduce workforce burden. Adopting a coherent approach with an agreed purpose and broad aims will maximise the potential for cross-ARC collaboration, synergy and impact. While the focus of this research has a COVID-19 focus, the ambition is that this framework should facilitate research beyond the current pandemic, ensuring programme sustainability and longevity across the lifetime of this 5-year NIHR ARC funding cycle. This framework is not intended to be prescriptive, rather, it is a call to colleagues doing research under the NIHR ARC umbrella to use the framework as a point of reference in the development of research projects and programmes. It is a modular approach which allows flexibility to fit the scientific questions and data collection to the needs of the specific workforce and context being studied. Why is it important? The NIHR has invested £135 million to support 15 collaboratives covering every region within England. The NIHR ARC collaborative provides a framework within which key stakeholders are brought together locally and nationally with a mandate to tackle difficult issues facing our health and care system including: patient outcomes, effectiveness of our health and care system, system sustainability, and carrying out research with an applied focus to facilitate the rapid translation of research into practice. Moreover, the designation of ARC South London and ARC East of England as national leads for mental health and the establishment of a National Mental Health Priorities Network provides a further opportunity for effective collaboration. The NIHR ARC network presents a unique opportunity to develop a coherent and consistent approach to workforce mental health and well-being research which embodies these principles. What will we do? The framework is available for any NIHR ARC to review and align with, to guide the development of work that aligns to the fundamental principles of the NIHR ARC programme. Who are we working with? The NIHR ARCs and their research themes are set out in a table included in the document. In line with the framework, colleagues are encouraged to work collaboratively to maximise synergy, impact, and reduce duplication and burden. The origins of this framework arose out of conversation with colleagues from across NIHR ARC sites between April 2020-June 2020. The framework has been developed by: Kirsten Windfuhr (ARC Greater Manchester), Jane Ball (ARC Wessex), Karina Lovell (ARC Greater Manchester) Penny Bee (ARC Greater Manchester). Additional contributions and comments were gratefully received from ARC colleagues, and in particular Kristy Sanderson (ARC East of England). More information For further information about this work, please contact Alison Littlewood (Programme Manager). (ARC GM) Download - Mental Health, Workforce and Well-being Research Framework

Get Involved We value all the help and support we get from our public contributors. Your input is important to us and helps us to design better research, address the health and care issues that matter in our communities and provide valuable support to our research teams. You can get involved with as little or as much as you would like either as a member of the public, a patient or carer for someone, or maybe you are supported in social care (sometimes called being a service user) The NHS, Universities and Councils often use jargon and short-hand as a way of describing things. Having people with different experience can help break down barriers in language. Working with us you will have all the support and encouragement you need in what can sometimes feel like an unfamiliar environment. We also cover costs of your time in many cases so that you are able to take part. If you would like to know more please get in touch with us at PublicInvolvement@uhs.nhs.uk or call us on 023 8120 4989. Or you can fill out the form below to let us know what particular things you're interested in. Introduction Frequently asked questions How would I be involved? Opportunities to help shape our research are varied and will depend on your interests. Activities include: Completing surveys or voting in online polls (this can be done remotely/at home) Attend group meetings and share your ideas and opinions, or help write and comment on information sheets for participants Work directly with our researchers and advise them on how to talk or write about their research findings in a way that is easy to understand How much time will it take? We understand people have different amounts of free time they’re able to give to PPI so we are very flexible in terms of how often you get involved. We will invite you to contribute to projects that match your interests – some may be one-off activities that could take an hour whilst others will require more commitment, such as attending group meetings every couple of months. However, you can decide which opportunities fit your schedule. What’s in it for me? There are many reasons why people choose to get involved with our PPI activities. You may want to share your health experiences, or give back to the NHS to help improve the lives of others. Or, you may want to develop your own skills or are just passionate about healthcare issues. People who are considering a career in healthcare find interacting with researchers and staff particularly useful. How are young people involved? We have a PPI group for young people aged 8-18 and another for young adults aged 16-24 . We meet regularly with both groups to get their ideas and opinions on research projects directly aimed at young people. Will I get paid? We are grateful for the time and effort our PPI members give and are able to reimburse costs of taking part in our PPI activities – for example, travel and carer or childcare costs. How do I find out more? The PPI team can provide more information, including how to become a PPI member, and answer any questions you have. You can contact the team by calling 023 8120 4989 or emailing PublicInvolvement@uhs.nhs.uk You can also join our mailing list (if you’re aged 16 years and over) to receive updates on our PPI activities and opportunities to get involved. If your child is interested in joining one of the PPI groups for young people, contact us to find out more. Frequently askd questions Our commitments and strategy Our new Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement team is growing and adapting to the needs of our community. As a result we are in the process of updating and redesigning our strat egy and summary documents listed below. Our commitments still stand as listed: We will use a variety of ways to seek the views and insights of patients and the public, and work to ensure that the diversity of people giving their views reflects the diversity of the local population. We will provide information that is clear, jargon free and accessible. We will ensure people are adequately supported in their involvement role. We will make sure there are no financial implications for people’s involvement. We will involve people in a way that is open, honest and meaningful, being clear about what decisions they can and cannot influence. We will act on the views we have sought, and feedback to those who gave them on what we did, working in partnership with patients and the public to improve the quality and relevance of our research. Public and Patient Involvement and Engage ment (PPI/E) strategy Download PPI/E Strategy 2021-2024 summary report Download PPI/E Strategy 2021 - 2024 full report PPI resources Public and Patient Involvement resources Learn more about Public and Patient Involvement Learn more about Public and Patient Invo... Play Video Play Video 00:51 Public and patient support in research Hazel and Phillip have just been taking part in the research design workshop looking at how people manage with a long term illness

Koren Luddington - Social Worker Autism and Neurodivergence Team - Portsmouth City Council < Back How I found my way S A L T to social worker Koren Luddington - Social Worker Autism and Neurodivergence Team - Portsmouth City Council Becoming a Social Worker was a slightly unexpected career path for me. After qualifying with a degree in Speech and Language Therapy at university, I fully intended on having a life-long career as a Speech and Language Therapist. During my training, I took a real interest in Learning Disability and Autism and got my initial post-qualification experience in this area. Being young and responsibility free, after a couple of years of working, I spontaneously decided to leave the country and explore the world for a year. Unfortunately, in this time the UK went into recession and when I returned home, there were limited opportunities arising in the NHS. Koren Luddington is a Social worker in Portsmouth At this point, the novel pilot scheme 'Step Up to Social Work' was brought to my attention. At first, I was only paying the idea lip service, as Social Work didn't really appeal to me - albeit, I knew very little about it. However, my skills and qualifications did tally with the requirements of this employment-based route into Social Work, which would also secure me a Masters degree upon completion. As I progressed through the stages of the application process, I began to find the subject varied and interesting. Through the 18 months of on-the-job training and studying, I felt more and more passionately about Social Work ideology and that this was in fact the most suitable career choice for me. I worked for 10 years in Children's Services, giving me an excellent foundation to build and hone my Social Work skills. When I saw a job advertised specialising in autism, I felt like this would be a great opportunity to return to this area of interest as well as improving my knowledge and experience of working in Adult Services. Since my initial experience of working in this area, there has been enormous progression in the understanding and approach towards Autism as a cognitive variance within the wider context of neurodivergence. I have enjoyed refreshing and updating my understanding of this shift in thinking and find it fascinating that there continues to be a tussle between whether autism should be considered via a social model or medical model framework. Listening to the lived experiences of the neuro-divergent people that I am working with, really got me thinking about many facets and themes that recurringly have impacted on these young people's lives. For example, is a diagnosis beneficial? If so, why is it needed and what support is inaccessible for those without a diagnosis? For what reason are autistic people 6 times more likely to experience mental health crisis than the general population?How well do universal services understand and accommodate the neuro-divergent needs of individuals? I found these kinds of questions sparking my curiosity and I was keen to explore whether there may be some responses to these questions. So, when the opportunity was presented to link with Portsmouth University as a visiting researcher, I was interested to find out more. Never having associated myself with 'academia', I was unsure whether my skills and knowledge would meet the necessary requirements for the role. It seemed like a completely different world from my day-to-day working experience; a world that I had perceived as being elusive and exclusive. My concerns were alleviated as I was matched with a mentor from the University, who was empathic and reassuring of my self-doubts. She made me feel as though all questions were valid and she was able to provide explanations that felt personalised and relevant to my field of work. Practically, my mentor has helped me to get set up on the University computer system, showed me how to access the library journals, search facilities and introduced me to new referencing software (which was not a 'thing' when I was last studying!) Crucially, my mentor has helped me to structure and narrow down my thought processes to identify a focus and objective for my research ideas. She has encouraged me to begin to critically analyse relevant topics and to identify and categorise themes in research. Undertaking training in realist evaluation has taught me the theoretical and structural basis that I needed to be able to consider the functionality of neurodivergent support services, within the importance of contextual systems and environments. It's inspiring to feel that researching the intricacies of service implementation can help provide much needed information; going some way to begin answering those initial stirring questions. My aim is to continue refining my ideas and learning from the wealth of research available in this area. If this could lead to working on a research project that would demonstrate an evidence base for useful and valuable support services for the neurodivergent community, then this would be hugely worthwhile progress towards improved opportunities and outcomes for autistic and neurodivergent people. Previous Next

Clare Phillips - Hepatology Nurse Specialist, MSc Global Health < Back My journey into research My interest in research came as a bit of a surprise. Clare Phillips - Hepatology Nurse Specialist, MSc Global Health My interest in research came as a bit of a surprise. In 2016, I started an MSc in Global Health part-time at BSMS. I had previously completed the Diploma of Tropical Nursing at London School of Health and Tropical Medicine and was working as a clinical nurse specialist in viral hepatitis at the time. I started the MSc thinking I’d be more interested in the policy side of the course or, where it might take me from a clinical perspective. But, it was working with Prof Gail Davey’s research group, for my MSc dissertation, that was the game changer. Prof Davey’s work in Ethiopia had shed light on the neglected tropical disease, podoconiosis , in quite a remarkable way - improving care for those living with the condition, giving a voice to the seldom heard, influencing national policy, challenging stigmatising attitudes and building research capacity (across disciplines) within Ethiopia. It was hugely inspiring and a clear example of how research had enormous scope to influence change. Having completed my MSc, I began voluntarily joining various research projects that were going on at work – collecting data for some, writing manuscripts for others. This helped me build my CV and confirmed that a career in research was right for me. I moved back to Southampton in summer 2019 and began working for the Alcohol Care Team at University Hospital Southampton. Inadvertently, I stepped into a research-focused team, who wanted to use research to make a difference to our patient group. And it made all the difference. In 2021, with my manger, Anya Farmbrough, and Richard Darch from Adult Safeguarding, I wrote a paper challenging perceptions of self-neglect in patients with alcohol use disorder ( More than a ‘lifestyle’ choice? Does a patient's use of alcohol affect professionals' perceptions of harm and safeguarding responsibilities when it comes to self-neglect? A case study in alcohol-related liver disease | Gastrointestinal Nursing ( magonlinelibrary.com ) ). With support from Anya and our medical lead, Prof Julia Sinclair, I applied for the ARC Wessex Mental Health (Alcohol) Internship in 2022. My internship focused on older adults with alcohol use disorder (AUD), analysing some pre-collected service evaluation data and working on a systematic review of AUD interventions in this cohort. The internship gave me the time (and funds) to focus on developing gaps in my skillset e.g. I took an online statistics course and had the opportunity to work 1:1 with the ARC statistician to refresh my statistics skills. I am not sure how or when I would have been able to do this without the internship. The internship also provided opportunities to present my work, from academic conferences to departmental meetings and PPI groups. This allowed me to get familiar with answering direct questions about my research, and how to deal with the trickier ones! As a result of the ARC Wessex Internship, I had 2 abstracts accepted at national conferences this year ( 1586 OLDER AGE IS AN IMPORTANT PREDICTOR OF NON-REFERRAL TO COMMUNITY ALCOHOL SERVICES FOLLOWING AN INPATIENT EPISODE: FINDINGS FROM | Age and Ageing | Oxford Academic ( oup.com ) , P28 Mortality and cause of death in patients aged 50–59, 12 months after review by an alcohol care team | Gut ( bmj.com ) ). The internship also got me thinking about my next steps and enabled some key conversations to take place. I am certain my future career is a research-focused one and am currently working on my application for Round 11 of the NIHR Doctoral Fellowship programme. I have an important research question that needs answering, and so its full steam ahead! More about Clare Previous Next

PPI/E Strategy 2021-2024 summary report The page has a summary of our strategy for involving people in our research - sometimes this is referred to as Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement. We have created a separate page with a detailed version of our strategy which can be used by screen readers, and there is also a glossary to explain some of the language used in the documents. (it might be useful to have this open in another TAB on your browser for reference). If there is something not quite right then email us at arcwessex@soton.ac.uk for help or any comments. Involving the Public in our Research Patients and the public are at the heart of our vision to improve the health and well-being of people across Wessex[i]. The knowledge, experiences and support of patients and the public are essential to ensure that our research goals and solutions are relevant, prevent waste, and bring the greatest possible benefits to society. We use the terms involvement[ii] and engagement[iii] to describe activities that aim to prioritise the public voice in our health and social care research. We aim to deliver high quality public involvement and engagement for health and social care. his document summarises our ambitions and gives a few examples of activities we will deliver in our first year (April 2021-March 2022). We listen to voices relevant to our research priorities that reflect the diversity of the local population – ensuring the underserved[iv] have a voice. This year we will: Work with the leads of each project starting in 2021 to identify who is underserved in the context of each project. We will prioritise the voices of these underserved groups in our involvement activities. Publish guidance documents on how to improve virtual meeting accessibility. Inclusive Opportunities We have a culture that respects different perspectives, values contributions and supports mutually respectful and productive relationships. This year we will: Work with our public members to develop and trial approaches to blending face-to-face and virtual activities as we adapt to changing social distancing restrictions. Develop induction materials that outline the support structures available in ARC Wessex for involvement and engagement activities. Working Together We capture, monitor and share our learnings. This year we will: Adapt an involvement impact tool so we can use it to monitor the impact of our activities. Impact We provide health research communities of Wessex (including public) adequate PPI/E training, support and learning opportunities. This year we will: Develop a course supporting the public with their confidence contributing to virtual meetings. Evaluate a pilot mentorship scheme, where we paired new PhD students with a public partner to provide mentorship in involvement and engagement. Deliver a training course focused on skills for public involvement to our researchers. Support and Learning We use innovative approaches and good communication to stimulate knowledge-of, and interest-in, our research. This year we will: Collect a baseline measurement (ie starting position) of how well feedback processes are embedded in our involvement and engagement activities. This will include understanding how regularly public members are told what difference their contributions have made to research. Communications We involve the public at strategic and operational levels. This year we will: Involve the public in decisions about which projects we will fund this year. Collect feedback from our public members who have strategic positions to understand if they feel heard and included in decision-making. Governance [ii] Public involvement activities describe activities where research is carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them. [iii] Engagement activities describe activities where information and knowledge about research is provided to and shared with the public. [iv] Underserved is the term we have chosen to use to describe people who are less well included in research. It is important to recognise that underserved groups are context-specific. There is no single, simple definition to describe all underserved groups. Want to know more? You can read our full strategy - or download a version as a file. Have questions or comments? Email ppiesupport @uhs.nhs.uk