The Experts below are selected from a list of 10791 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Sharon Mickan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The impact of a small-group educational intervention for Allied Health Professionals to enhance evidence-based practice: mixed methods evaluation
BMC, 2019Co-Authors: Sharon Mickan, Joanne Hilder, Rachel Wenke, Rae ThomasAbstract:Abstract Background Healthcare Professionals are recommended to use evidence-based practice (EBP) principles to update and improve clinical practice. Well-designed educational initiatives, together with practice and feedback opportunities can improve individuals’ EBP knowledge, skills and attitudes. Methods A concurrent mixed methods assessment was designed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of four monthly workshops on Allied Health Professionals’ knowledge, skills, self-efficacy and behaviour. In between workshops, Professionals were encouraged to practice and integrate EBP learnings with colleagues in their workplace. Participants completed three pre and post intervention assessments: Evidence-based Practice Confidence Scale; adapted Fresno test; and an adapted EBP Implementation Scale. A purpose designed satisfaction questionnaire was completed immediately after the educational intervention and follow up focus groups were conducted after 3 months. Mean change in assessment data was quantitatively assessed and comments from the clinician satisfaction questionnaire and focus groups were thematically analysed and interpreted together with quantitative data using the Classification Rubric for EBP Assessment tools in Education (CREATE). Results Sixteen Allied Health Professionals participated in the EBP workshops and completed all baseline and post intervention assessments. Seven clinicians participated in follow up focus groups. All clinicians reported a positive reaction to the learning experience, preferring short monthly workshops to a full day session. They self-reported improvements in self-efficacy (mean change 15 p
-
Research capacity building frameworks for Allied Health Professionals – a systematic review
BMC Health Services Research, 2018Co-Authors: Janine Matus, Ashlea Walker, Sharon MickanAbstract:Building the capacity of Allied Health Professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, Healthcare Professionals, Healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. A systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data. A total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including ‘supporting clinicians in research’, ‘working together’ and ‘valuing research for excellence’. The findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated ‘whole of system’ approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework. The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .
-
research capacity building frameworks for Allied Health Professionals a systematic review
BMC Health Services Research, 2018Co-Authors: Janine Matus, Ashlea Walker, Sharon MickanAbstract:Building the capacity of Allied Health Professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, Healthcare Professionals, Healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. A systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data. A total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including ‘supporting clinicians in research’, ‘working together’ and ‘valuing research for excellence’. The findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated ‘whole of system’ approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework. The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .
Nicholas F. Taylor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research interest, experience and confidence of Allied Health Professionals working in medical imaging: a cross-sectional survey.
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 2020Co-Authors: Amy M. Dennett, Travis Cauchi, Katherine E. Harding, Paul Kelly, Georgina Ashby, Nicholas F. TaylorAbstract:INTRODUCTION There is growing interest in developing research culture and opportunities for Allied Health Professionals working in medical imaging. However, little attention has been given to identifying the research interest and needs of this group relative to the other Allied Health professions. We aimed to measure self-reported research participation, interest, experience and confidence of Allied Health Professionals working in medical imaging and compare the findings to clinicians working in Allied Health therapies. METHODS A cross-sectional survey of Allied Health Professionals from medical imaging (radiographers, sonographers and nuclear medicine technologists) was conducted. The primary outcome, the Research Spider survey, measures 10 domains of research interest/experience/confidence on a 5-point Likert scale. Results were compared to Allied Health therapy data. RESULTS Responses were received by 82 medical imaging Allied Health Professionals (65% response rate). Overall, medical imaging Professionals rated themselves as having 'some interest' and 'little experience or confidence' in research. There was no difference in interest, experience and confidence among different imaging professions (interest P = 0.099, experience P = 0.380, confidence P = 0.212) or Allied Health therapists (interest P = 0.137, experience P = 0.363, confidence P = 0.791). Participants reported greatest interest in finding and reviewing literature and lowest interest in applying for funding. CONCLUSION There are strong similarities between medical imaging Allied Health Professionals and Allied Health therapy Professionals. Therefore, strategies used to promote research culture in Allied Health therapy professions could be leveraged to provide opportunities for medical imaging Allied Health Professionals.
-
Effective clinical supervision of Allied Health Professionals: a mixed methods study
BMC Health Services Research, 2019Co-Authors: David A. Snowdon, Michelle Sargent, Cylie Williams, Stephen Maloney, Kirsten Caspers, Nicholas F. TaylorAbstract:Clinical supervision is recommended for Allied Health Professionals for the purpose of supporting them in their professional role, continued professional development and ensuring patient safety and high quality care. The aim of this mixed methods study was to explore Allied Health Professionals’ perceptions about the aspects of clinical supervision that can facilitate effective clinical supervision. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted on a purposive sample of 38 Allied Health Professionals working in a metropolitan public hospital. Qualitative analysis was completed using an interpretive description approach. To enable triangulation of qualitative data, a quantitative descriptive survey of clinical supervision effectiveness was also conducted using the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26). Three main themes emerged from qualitative analysis: Allied Health Professionals reported that clinical supervision was most effective when their professional development was the focus of clinical supervision; the supervisor possessed the skills and attributes required to facilitate a constructive supervisory relationship; and the organisation provided an environment that facilitated this relationship together with their own professional development. Three subthemes also emerged within each of the main themes: the importance of the supervisory relationship; prioritisation of clinical supervision relative to other professional duties; and flexibility of supervision models, processes and approaches to clinical supervision. The mean MCSS-26 score was 79.2 (95%CI 73.7 to 84.3) with scores ranging from 44 to 100. MCSS-26 results converged with the qualitative findings with participants reporting an overall positive experience with clinical supervision. The factors identified by Allied Health Professionals that influenced the effectiveness of their clinical supervision were mostly consistent among the professions. However, Allied Health Professionals reported using models of clinical supervision that best suited their profession’s role and learning style. This highlighted the need for flexible approaches to Allied Health clinical supervision that should be reflected in clinical supervision policies and guidelines. Many of the identified factors that influence the effectiveness of clinical supervision of Allied Health Professionals can be influenced by Health organisations.
-
The association between effectiveness of clinical supervision of Allied Health Professionals and improvement in patient function in an inpatient rehabilitation setting
Disability and Rehabilitation, 2019Co-Authors: David A. Snowdon, Sandra G. Leggat, Katherine E. Harding, Jude N. Boyd, Grant Scroggie, Nicholas F. TaylorAbstract:Purpose: Clinical supervision is widely accepted as an important element of practice for Allied Health Professionals to ensure a high quality of patient care. However, it is unknown whether effecti...
-
Clinical Supervision for Allied Health Professionals Working in Community Health Care Settings: Barriers to Participation.
Journal of allied health, 2019Co-Authors: Erin Wilson, Nicholas F. TaylorAbstract:ISSUE This study aimed to understand the barriers to clinical supervision participation for Allied Health Professionals working in community Health care settings. METHOD The study used a quantitative descriptive survey to identify barriers to clinical supervision participation and a qualitative analysis of three focus groups. A total of 153 surveys were completed (70% response rate) and 23 clinicians participated in focus groups with themes identified via thematic analysis. OUTCOMES Allied Health Professionals valued the need to receive clinical supervision, but a lack of time, variable understanding of clinical supervision, limited access to supervisors, efficacy of clinical supervision, and policy implementation were identified as barriers. CONCLUSION A multi-pronged organisational approach addressing these key barriers may increase clinical supervision participation in community Health care settings.
-
Evaluating the Introduction of an Allied Health Clinical Research Office at a Health Service: Effects on Research Participation, Interest, and Experience of Allied Health Professionals.
Journal of allied health, 2019Co-Authors: Nicholas F. Taylor, Katherine E. Harding, Judi Porter, Lauren Lynch, Anne Horne-thompson, Jason A. Wallis, Glenda Kerridge, Alison Wilby, Anna Joy, Michelle R KaminskiAbstract:Following the introduction of an Allied Health clinical research office at a large metropolitan Health service, we aimed to measure change in self-reported research participation, interest and experience of Allied Health Professionals. METHODS Allied Health Professionals were surveyed using the Research Spider tool in 2015 (n=245), and the results were compared to a similar survey completed in 2007 at the same Health service (n=132). RESULTS Overall, Allied Health Professionals rated themselves as having "some research interest" and "little research experience," with no significant difference from 2007 to 2015. Allied Health Professionals with at least some research interest reported increased experience in critically reviewing literature (p=0.045) and finding relevant literature (p=0.009) and a trend to increased experience of publishing research (p=0.059) in 2015 compared with 2007. The proportion of Allied Health Professionals who classified themselves as participating in research had increased from 41% in 2007 to 51% in 2015 (p=0.028). CONCLUSIONS The introduction of an Allied Health clinical research office has been associated with increased participation in research with some improvements in research experience for those with at least some interest in research. Despite these positive changes, most Allied Health Professionals at this Health service still report little research experience and only some interest in research.
Geoff K Frampton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a systematic review of evidence about extended roles for Allied Health Professionals
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2006Co-Authors: Kathryn M Mcpherson, Paula Kersten, Steve George, Valerie Lattimer, Alice Breton, Bridget Ellis, Dawn Kaur, Geoff K FramptonAbstract:Objective : Extending theroleofAllied HealthProfessionalshasbeenpromoted asa keycomponentofdevel-oping a £exible Health workforce. This review aimed to synthesize the evidence about the impact of theseroles.Methods : A systematic review of extended scope of practice in ¢ve groups: paramedics, physiotherapists,occupational therapists, radiographers, and speech and language therapists.The nature and eiect of theseroles on patients, Health Professionals and Health services were examined. An inclusive approachto search-ing was used to maximize potential sources of interest including multiple databases,grey literature andsubject area experts. An expanded Cochrane Collaboration method was used inview of the anticipated lackof randomized controlled trials and heterogeneity of designs. Papers were only excluded after the searchstageforlackofrelevance.Results : Atotal of 355 papers was identi¢ed as meeting relevance criteria and 21studies progressed to fullreview and data extraction. The primary reason for exclusion from data extraction was that the studyincluded neither qualitative nor quantitative data or because methodological £aws compromised dataquality. It wasnot possible to evaluate any pooled eiects as patient Health outcomes wererarelyconsidered.Conclusions : A range ofextendedpracticeroles for Allied Health Professionals havebeen promoted and arebeing undertaken, but their Health outcomes have rarely been evaluated.There is also little evidence as tohowbest to introduce such roles, orhowbest to educate, support and mentor these practitioners.
Janine Matus - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research capacity building frameworks for Allied Health Professionals – a systematic review
BMC Health Services Research, 2018Co-Authors: Janine Matus, Ashlea Walker, Sharon MickanAbstract:Building the capacity of Allied Health Professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, Healthcare Professionals, Healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. A systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data. A total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including ‘supporting clinicians in research’, ‘working together’ and ‘valuing research for excellence’. The findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated ‘whole of system’ approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework. The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .
-
research capacity building frameworks for Allied Health Professionals a systematic review
BMC Health Services Research, 2018Co-Authors: Janine Matus, Ashlea Walker, Sharon MickanAbstract:Building the capacity of Allied Health Professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, Healthcare Professionals, Healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. A systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data. A total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including ‘supporting clinicians in research’, ‘working together’ and ‘valuing research for excellence’. The findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for Allied Health Professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary Healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated ‘whole of system’ approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework. The protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .
Tanya Lehmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
clinical supervision of Allied Health Professionals in country south australia a mixed methods pilot study
American Journal of Roentgenology, 2015Co-Authors: Saravana Kumar, Kate Osborne, Tanya LehmannAbstract:INTRODUCTION Recent times have witnessed dramatic changes in Health care with overt recognition for quality and safety to underpin Health care service delivery. In addition to systems-wide focus, the importance of supporting and mentoring people delivering the care has also been recognised. This can be achieved through quality clinical supervision. In 2010, Country Health South Australia Local Health Network developed a holistic Allied Health clinical governance structure, which was implemented in 2011. OBJECTIVE This research reports on emergent findings from the evaluation of the clinical governance structure, which included mandating clinical supervision for all Allied Health staff. METHODS A mixed method approach was chosen with evaluation of the impact of clinical supervision undertaken by a psychometrically sound instrument (Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale 26-item version), collected through an anonymous online survey and qualitative data collected through semistructured interviews and focus groups. RESULTS Overall, 189 Allied Health Professionals responded to the survey. Survey responses indicated Allied Health Professionals recognised the importance of and valued receiving clinical supervision (normative domain), had levels of trust and rapport with, and were supported by supervisors (restorative domain) and positively affected their delivery of care and improvement in skills (formative domain). Qualitative data identified enablers such as profession specific gains, improved opportunities and consistency for clinical supervision and barriers such as persistent organisational issues, lack of clarity (delineation of roles) and communication issues. CONCLUSION The findings from this research highlight that while clinical supervision has an important role to play, it is not a panacea for all the ills of the Health care system.
