Organisation, practice and experiences of mouth hygiene in stroke unit care: a mixed methods study.
Publication date
2015-03Keyword
Aims and objectives To (1) investigate the organisation, provision and practice of oral care in typical UK stroke units; (2) explore stroke survivors', carers' and healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions about the barriers and facilitators to receiving and undertaking oral care in stroke units. Background Cerebrovascular disease and oral health are major global health concerns. Little is known about the provision, challenges and practice of oral care in the stroke unit setting, and there are currently no evidence-based practice guidelines. Design Cross-sectional survey of 11 stroke units across Greater Manchester and descriptive qualitative study using focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Methods A self-report questionnaire was used to survey 11 stroke units in Greater Manchester. Data were then collected through two focus groups (n = 10) with healthcare professionals and five semi-structured interviews with stroke survivors and carers. Focus group and interview data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using framework approach. Results Eleven stroke units in Greater Manchester responded to the survey. Stroke survivors and carers identified a lack of oral care practice and enablement by healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals identified a lack of formal training to conduct oral care for stroke patients, inconsistency in the delivery of oral care and no set protocols or use of formal oral assessment tools. Conclusion Oral care post-stroke could be improved by increasing healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding and knowledge of the potential health benefits of oral care post-stroke. Further research is required to develop and evaluate the provision of oral care in stroke care to inform evidence-based education and practice.Carer; Cerebrovascular accident; Mouth care; Oral hygiene; Pneumonia; Quality of life; Rehabilitation; Service user
Peer-Reviewed
yesMetadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Aims and objectives To (1) investigate the organisation, provision and practice of oral care in typical UK stroke units; (2) explore stroke survivors', carers' and healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions about the barriers and facilitators to receiving and undertaking oral care in stroke units. Background Cerebrovascular disease and oral health are major global health concerns. Little is known about the provision, challenges and practice of oral care in the stroke unit setting, and there are currently no evidence-based practice guidelines. Design Cross-sectional survey of 11 stroke units across Greater Manchester and descriptive qualitative study using focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Methods A self-report questionnaire was used to survey 11 stroke units in Greater Manchester. Data were then collected through two focus groups (n = 10) with healthcare professionals and five semi-structured interviews with stroke survivors and carers. Focus group and interview data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using framework approach. Results Eleven stroke units in Greater Manchester responded to the survey. Stroke survivors and carers identified a lack of oral care practice and enablement by healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals identified a lack of formal training to conduct oral care for stroke patients, inconsistency in the delivery of oral care and no set protocols or use of formal oral assessment tools. Conclusion Oral care post-stroke could be improved by increasing healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding and knowledge of the potential health benefits of oral care post-stroke. Further research is required to develop and evaluate the provision of oral care in stroke care to inform evidence-based education and practice.Version
No full-text available in the repositoryCitation
Horne M, McCracken G, Walls A, Tyrrell P and Smith CJ (2015) Organisation, practice and experiences of mouth hygiene in stroke unit care: a mixed methods study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24 (5-6): 728–738.Link to publisher’s version
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12665Type
ArticleCollections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Advanced Practice: Research ReportThe Health Care and Professions Council (HCPC) regulates fifteen different professions; some of these are large groups like Physiotherapists and some are much smaller such as Speech and Language Therapists (SLT). Most of the people registered by the HCPC work within their own areas of clinical expertise and defined professional scope of practice. However, an increasing number of registrants are undertaking new or additional roles beyond the traditional scope of practice for the defined profession. These roles are often shared with other medical or health professionals and persons undertaking these roles are often, but not consistently, referred to as Advanced Practitioners. Advanced Practitioners are employed within the NHS across all four countries of the UK and are also employed by private healthcare providers. The roles they undertake vary from the highly specialised (e.g. an advanced podiatrist might specialise in biomechanics) to more general roles with greater professional autonomy and decision-making (e.g. a paramedic working in a GP Practice assessing patients with undifferentiated acute problems). As a result, there is currently no consistency in role title, scope of advanced practice, necessary underpinning education or professional accreditation across the HCPC registered professions. This study was undertaken to explore these issues and seek opinion on the need for additional regulatory measures for persons working at an advanced practice level. NB: For the purposes of this study, advanced practice was considered to encompass all roles, regardless of role title, where the level of practice undertaken was considered to be advanced. Method Three approaches to data collection were undertaken to ensure the differing opinions across all HCPC registered professions, different stakeholders and the four nations of the UK were collected. Data were collected through: 1. A UK wide survey of HCPC registered healthcare professionals; 2. A UK wide survey of organisations delivering AHP & scientific advanced practice education; 3. A series of focus groups and interviews across a range of stakeholder groups. Findings The concept of advanced level practice was not consistently understood or interpreted across the different stakeholder groups. Those participants identifying as working at an advanced practice level undertook a range of activities both within and out with the traditional scope of practice of the registered profession adding a further layer of complexity. Educational support and availability for advanced level practice varied across professional groups and inequity of accessibility and appropriateness of content were raised as concerns. There is no consensus across participant groups on the need for regulation of advanced level practice. Perceived advantages to additional regulation were the consistent and equal educational and employer governance expectations, particularly where multiple professional groups are undertaking the same role, all be it with a differing professional educational foundation and lens. However, while some voices across the participant groups felt regulation was essential to assure practice standards and reduce risk of role title misuse, there was equally a lack of appetite for regulation that inhibited agility to respond to, and reflect, the rapidly changing healthcare environment and evolving scope of advanced level practice. Importantly, no evidence was presented from any participant group that advanced level practice within HCPC regulated professions presents a risk to the public. Conclusion The study data presented in this report reflect the complexity of the concept of advanced practice within the HCPC regulated professions. Much of this is a consequence of the differing speeds of professional role development across healthcare organisations and professional groups, often related to service capacity gaps and locally developed education to support local initiatives. Despite this, there is no clear evidence, based on the findings of this research, that additional regulation of advanced level practice is needed, or desired, to protect the public. However, as the HCPC is one of the few organisations with a UK wide remit, it may have a central role in achieving unification across the 4 nations in relation to the future role expectations, educational standards, and governance of advanced level practice.
-
The preparation and practice of disabled health care practitioners: exploring the issues.Regulatory bodies governing health professions and professional education set clear expectations regarding fitness to practise. Within the UK, the Equality Act, 2010, poses a challenge to regulators, educators and employers to ensure that people are not excluded on the basis of disability and to facilitate inclusion. This research took a mixed methods approach to exploring the tensions between Higher Education providers and placement providers in the health sector. Disabled and nondisabled students and health professionals engaged in semistructured interviews and a survey in order to explore their beliefs and experiences. The findings suggest that applying equality legislation within health settings may be particularly difficult and that ¿disability¿ is an ambiguous and multifaceted concept. Whilst small in scale, the findings have given a voice to a professional group who are underrepresented in research and have raised a number of important issues that merit discussion and further scrutiny.
-
Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: implications for practiceAbstract Background: Blood pressure (BP) measurement is increasingly carried out through home or ambulatory monitoring, yet existing cardiovascular risk scores were developed for use with measurements obtained in clinic. Aim: To describe differences in cardiovascular risk estimates obtained using ambulatory or home BP measurements instead of clinic readings. Design and setting: Secondary analysis of data from adults aged 30-84 without prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in two BP monitoring studies (BP-Eth and HOMERUS). Method: The primary comparison was Framingham risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements. The QRISK2 and SCORE risk equations were also studied. Statistical and clinical significance were determined using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and scatter plots respectively. Results: In 442 BP-Eth patients (mean age = 58 years, 50% female) the median absolute difference in 10-year Framingham cardiovascular risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements was 1.84% (interquartile range 0.65 to 3.63, p=0.67). Only 31/ 442 (7.0%) of patients were reclassified across the 10% risk treatment threshold. In 165 HOMERUS patients (mean age = 56 years, 46% female) the median difference in 10-year risk was 2.76% (IQR 1.19 to 6.39, p<0.001) and only 8/165 (4.8%) of patient were reclassified. Conclusion: Estimates of cardiovascular risk are similar when calculated using BP measurements obtained as in the risk score derivation study or through ambulatory monitoring. Further research is required to determine if differences in estimated risk would meaningfully influence risk score accuracy.
