Category: Education

MHNAUK launches a blog

Michael Coffey, chair of Mental Health Nurse Academics UK, has today launched the group’s blog at http://mhnauk.com.

On the site’s home page Michael writes that:

This is the first entry in what we hope will be a vibrant and engaging place for members of MHNAUK to communicate the range of work we as a group do […] we want to communicate to a wider audience via this blog to show what we are doing and to engage in dialogue about our views on the future direction of education, research and ultimately the practice of mental health nursing.

Michael also points to some of MHNAUK’s current projects. These include Andy Mercer (from Bournemouth University) gathering evidence on the different ways applicants for pre-registration mental health nursing courses are selected, and Fiona Nolan (from UCL) leading an overview of mental health nursing research in the UK.

I’ve posted a comment on the site, and look forward to others doing the same. Go check it out. Right now!

NHS changes, and the state of research in nursing

Since publishing my last post the Health and Social Care Act has come into force in England. For a frontline NHS worker’s views on what this means, check out this commentary by East London GP Dr Youssef El-Gingihy. Personally I’m glad to be living and working in Wales. I am pleased to say that here there is still government support for an NHS which is funded, planned and provided with the public good in mind.

Elsewhere, within my corner of nursing (the academic bit) an editorial by David Thompson and Philip Darbyshire which appeared in the January issue of the Journal of Advanced Nursing has provoked a series of robust, just-published, responses. These have variously been penned by Bryar et alGallagher, Ralph, Rolley, White and Cross and Williams. JAN also carries Thompson and Darbyshire’s rejoinder, through which the responses are responded to.

The debate has a number of elements. In their editorial Thompson and Darbyshire argued that the quality of academic nursing has declined, and that some nurses working in some universities occupy positions of seniority which their experiences and qualifications have not prepared them for. They also accused those they termed the ‘killer elite’ of running departments as managerial fiefdoms, without tolerance for critical enquiry or dissent. This month’s responses include pieces both for, and against, the Thompson and Darbyshire position. Interested readers can follow all this up for themselves through the links I’ve given above, and I won’t attempt to summarise the full range of views offered.

What I will say is that, for all sorts of historical and contextual reasons, it remains remarkably difficult to sustain a career as a nurse doing research. Funding streams for nursing and midwifery departments in UK universities are largely earmarked for teaching, and relatively few university-based nurses have had opportunities to study for research degrees. Amongst those who have completed doctorates many have found it hard to progress to become independent researchers. Large numbers appear to have returned to roles which do not include significant research components. Only a handful of departments have a critical mass of research-active nurses and midwives, leaving the majority vulnerable when key people leave or retire.

But we have to keep at it. What nurses do touches the lives of millions, every day of the year. Research has an important part to play in improving the nursing contribution: from finding out ‘what works’, to learning about the experience of people on the receiving end of nurses’ services, and onwards to establishing how care might best be organised. Taking a research idea and turning it into a proposal which stands a chance of securing funding through open competition is tough (ask a scientist or a historian: it’s just the same for them), but if we truly want a sound base for nursing practice then this is work which has to be done. And as I am currently learning all over again, actually doing research once funding has been obtained is never as straightforward as the textbooks would have us believe.

A brief correcting post on the education of nurses

Yesterday the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, declared that would-be nurses should spend a year doing hands-on care, working directly with health care assistants, in order to be eligible for funded nursing degrees. Today it occurs to me that large sections of the population may be labouring under the misapprehension that student nurses currently spend their whole three years sitting in classrooms. So let me join the queue of people who have already pointed out that, absolutely, they do not. In order to register, students are required to spend half of their time working directly in practice. This point, plus others, was very well-made by the University of Southampton student (whose name I cannot remember, unfortunately) who was interviewed on this matter on yesterday’s BBC News. Bearing in mind that nursing degrees are lengthy affairs (the terms are much longer than those followed by students of most other disciplines), the amount of time learners spend doing care work is already significant.

Selecting students of nursing

During my recent visit to the Netherlands I learned that universities there are obliged to offer places to applicants provided that the formal entry requirements are met. So, for applicants to nursing courses, there are no selection events: no interviews, no assessments of aptitude or attitude, no tests in numeracy or literacy. Here in the UK, the NMC (our regulatory body) requires that offers of places on nursing degrees are only extended after face-to-face selections have taken place. The NMC asks that interviews include assessments of motivation, and of reasons for choice of intended field of practice (adult, mental health, children or learning disability). Would-be students are also invited to demonstrate their understanding of the work of nurses. An interesting difference in approaches, I thought.

Visiting the Netherlands

HAN 4
Bisschop Hamerhuis in Nijmegen, home to Dr Bauke Koekkoek and the Social Psychiatry and Mental Health Nursing research group

Michael Coffey and I have just returned from a four day trip to the Netherlands, an event supported with funding from the Mental Health Research Network Cymru. We were there to share and develop research ideas with the impressive Dr Bauke Koekkoek and colleagues, and to learn about the Dutch mental health system. Bauke, a mental health nurse, is Associate Professor of Social Psychiatry and Mental Health in the Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen (HAN) University of Applied Sciences, and is interested (amongst other things) in matching the needs of people with mental health difficulties with services. You can read more about Bauke’s work in his inaugural lecture.

RGF130319-1065
Bauke, in mid-flow

Bauke did a great job organising a full schedule of activities for our three working days away. Well done, Dutch train and bus companies, for delivering Michael and me to our various destinations in timely fashion. We were, though, reminded during our trip that it is the bicycle which remains the vehicle of choice for many Netherlanders.

We had the chance to meet with academics, practitioners and service users during our travels across Utrecht, Arnhem and Nijmegen. Our thanks to everyone who gave their time and who shared their expertise so generously: Dr Arjan Braam; Mark van Veen; the Kompas team at Pro Persona‘s Wolfheze site; Dr Ad Kaasenbrood and his colleagues in the Arnhem Functional Assertive Outreach Team (and particularly Vincent and Riska, who Michael and I spent Tuesday morning with); the Arnhem FACT Team service users who welcomed us into their homes; the HAN Social Psychiatry and Mental Health Nursing research group; and Hein, Rob and Leon who teach at HAN and have interests in developing international links.

RGF130319-1105
Michael, holding forth

The Social Psychiatry and Mental Health Nursing research group, who we met on Tuesday afternoon, are a capable and accomplished team. Their MATCH Project is supported by a significant grant, and Bauke and his collaborators have done exceptionally well in using this as a springboard for further, associated, studies. Examples include PhDs investigating the effectiveness of therapies, and a planned ethnographic examination focusing on discharge (and non-discharge) of people from community care.

It was good to hear people present and discuss their ideas, and in a spirit of collegiality Michael and I had the chance to share our interests and plans. I took the chance to talk about my research in a general sense, using as a prop this set of slides embedded below:

RGF130319-1126
Attentive listeners!

Interesting to learn during our time away was the system of preparing mental health nurses in the Netherlands. Yesterday, for example, we met Rob Keukens who runs HAN’s part-time, 18 month, post-qualification social psychiatric nursing programme. This is the nearest thing to what here, in the UK, we would describe as a post-registration course for community mental health nurses (CMHNs). For those interested, Bauke has described and analysed the Dutch CMHN profession in this paper.

RGF130319-1069
Me enjoying a joke. Or something like that.

The principal purpose of our trip was to further our research connections, and for Bauke, Michael and me to spend time putting our heads together to develop new research ideas. We know we’ll need to involve others, and target funding streams sympathetic to international research proposals which set out to create new knowledge to improve mental health and well-being and the organisation of mental health services.

More on all this to follow in due course, I am sure.

Cardiff hosting, and NPNR news

This is the week that both Mental Health Nurse Academics and the COCAPP team come to Cardiff. MHNAUK’s meeting on Friday will take place in the Council Chamber in the Main Building, which is really rather grand. Visiting COCAPPers can look forward to a more everyday venue for our Thursday meet-up. This will be in Eastgate House (which is where I’m based).

Other news of note in the world of mental health nursing education and research is the impending move of this autumn’s Network for Psychiatric Nursing Research conference from Oxford to Warwick. The annual NPNR bash has taken place in Oxford pretty much since it was launched in the 1990s. I gather from my Twitter-using pals who sit on the scientific and organising committees that we can expect a relocation for an event scheduled, this year, for September 5th and 6th. It occurs to me that Warwick University is well-placed for delegates travelling from all parts of the UK, and indeed from around the world.

Abstract-sifting, a new publication, and music to work by

Not much time for blogging lately, what with one thing and another. I’ve turned into a kind of abstract-sifting machine, poring over the details of papers for possible inclusion in two unrelated evidence syntheses/literature reviews. Amongst other things I’ve also been making some final preparations for a day away (as an examiner) later this week, catching up with colleagues over various bits and pieces, and arranging to meet up with undergraduate students.

Some good news over the weekend was confirmation of a new paper being accepted for publication, in the International Journal of Nursing Studies. My friend Michael Coffey is lead author, and we’ve written about the emergence of the role of approved mental health professional and what this means for nursing. A quick look at the SHERPA/RoMEO website suggests we’ll be able to add post-peer review versions to our respective institutional repositories. I’ll then add a link, and perhaps a bit of a commentary, on this blog.

As an aside, I am reminded of the majesty of Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue. It’s more than a decade since I was first introduced to this, and it now occupies a special place in my (eclectic) music collection. I mention this as Kind of Blue is an album I often turn to when I’m fretting over tasks requiring concentration: like writing, or indeed sifting abstracts. I listened to it today, in its entirety. Then I listened to it again.

What I do at work, described using only the commonest 1,000 words in the English language

Via a link in a tweet from @bengoldacre I came across the Bad Science (and now Bad Pharma) author’s secondary (!) blog, and this page in particular. Here, Ben describes how randomised controlled trials work, using the English language’s commonest 1,000 words.

The idea of making complex things simple in this way comes from Randall Munroe at http://xkcd.com, who produced the wonderful graphic I’ve reproduced here (with his permission) of how the Saturn V rocket works. Called Up Goer Five, the supporting text (as you can see for yourselves) explains things ‘using only the ten hundred words people use the most often’.

So that anyone can have a go at making difficult stuff understandable in this way, a text editor has now sprung up at http://splasho.com/upgoer5/. In goes your explanation, and if you happen to use a word from outside of the list of 1,000 commonest you’ll get a message telling you that it is not permitted. Such fun. You can also tell others of your efforts through Twitter using the #upgoerfive hashtag.

Yesterday and today I’ve been using this online tool to chip away at a description of what I do at work. It turns out that an awful lot of the words I’m fondest of fall outside of the list of those permitted. Examples include ‘process’, ‘system’, ‘nurse’, ‘health’, ‘complex’ and ‘organise’.

Anyway, here’s my effort:

For over 60 years people in this part of the world have believed that those who are sick should be looked after, without having to pay for their care at the time they need it. So to make sure there are always people around to do the job of caring, and to make sure there are places to go when we’re sick, everyone who works gives some of their money to pay for doctors, hospitals and so on. The important thing is that if you’re sick you should get the help you need, no matter how much money you have (or don’t have). I think this is a great way of doing things, and so do lots of other people.

But what do we mean by being sick, and what type of care is best? Some people have problems like their hearts not working in the way they should, or other bits of their bodies going wrong. But there are also people who have problems with how they think, feel or act when they are with others. They can get very sad, scared and worried. They can get confused, and/or hear things which aren’t really there. Families and friends get concerned when these things happen, but don’t always know what best to do. As it happens, we don’t completely know what causes these kinds of problem. It may be because something is wrong in the body, and/or it might be because bad stuff happens to people which makes them sad.

Maybe one day we’ll know much more about what causes people to be sick in these ways, and be able to help them more or even stop their problems happening in the first place. But for now, and I guess always, we need people who spend their time looking after those who get very sad, or worried, or confused, or who hear things which aren’t there. This is serious and important work, and there are lots of different types of people who do it. Those who do it as a job can be found in teams both in, and out of, hospitals. In truth, how these people and the teams they work in fit together can be really confusing. Nothing ever stands still, as new ways of getting stuff done appear.

So here’s what I do. I trained to look after people who have problems with thinking, feeling and acting and now I help to train others in this field. I also study people who do this kind of caring work, the teams they work in and what it’s like to be someone getting help. I do this because it’s important to find out how the different parts (the people, the teams) fit together, and to learn how caring work can be done in different, and maybe better, ways. Working with friends with the same interests I have used a number of approaches to study these things. I have sat with people and asked them questions about the work they do. I have read what people write about the care work they have done, and have watched people doing their day-to-day jobs. I have asked about the care work that people (like family and friends) do, and for which no-one is paid. I have asked people to tell me what it is like to get help from people in different jobs, and what it is like to have care across different teams over time. I have given people pieces of paper with questions about what they think and feel, and asked them to return their answers for us to read and study.

What have I found? The work that people do is changed by where and when they do it, and by who else is around. So you and I might think we know about the work that people in caring jobs do, but it turns out that there are lots of different ways of getting stuff done. Jobs change over time, and sometimes people do not agree who should do what. In teams, people sometimes do work which has to be done because there is no-one else to do it. I happen to think this is interesting and important, for lots of reasons. One reason is that if we don’t know what types of work people will end up doing, how do we know how best to train students? I have also found that a lot of caring work is hidden, because it is done by people who are not paid and/or who are on the edges. This is especially so in the case of people living in their own homes, and who get help from care teams which are placed outside of hospitals. Everyone thinks of doctors, but who remembers the work done by the person living next door? The way the different bits (the people, the teams) fit together means that those who are in need sometimes have problems getting the right help at the right time. And, when new teams appear, I have found that these can do great work but at the same time cause new problems to pop up somewhere else. This is because everything is joined to everything else. From studies completed with friends some years ago, I have also found that doing caring work is not easy. People who do it can get to feel very worn out.

Here is some new stuff I’m doing now. With friends I’m going to look at how people plan care, and what this means for the person who needs help. I’m also about to start a new study where we will read about young people in hospital, and how those who care for them keep them safe.

Snow, research and higher degrees

Red weather warningToday brought the predicted dollop of snow, meaning that yesterday there was no bread to be had in the shops. See this Met Office map of the UK, with its colour-coded weather warnings? See the red blob? That’s where I live, and where I am now.

This has been an interesting, and particularly research-oriented, working week. I spent part of Monday with a group of postgraduates, discussing processes for the review and approval of research and other projects. It has to be said that the opportunities for MSc students to complete small-scale data-generating studies are fewer than they once were, particularly if their plans are to generate data in the NHS. The time needed to secure R&D and research ethics approval can take a serious chunk out of the typical student’s period of candidature. Now, unless studies can be shown to be linked to larger research endeavours there’s also a fair chance that some NHS organisations will want to levy charges for processing R&D applications and for consuming their resources. As I ended up telling this particular MSc group, for NHS governance purposes there are also fine distinctions sometimes to be made between ‘research’ and other activities (like ‘service evaluation’ and ‘audit’) which, on the face of it, can look pretty ‘research-y’.

Monday also brought a meeting with second year, undergraduate, pre-registration mental health nursing students. That was nice, and we got to talk about all manner of things: the history of mental health nursing, developments in local services, experiences of practice.

Tuesday brought a project advisory group meeting chaired by Professor Billie Hunter. Billie’s study is funded by the Royal College of Midwives, and is examining midwives’ resilience. It’s interesting both methodologically and substantively, and one of the things I’m learning about is the generation of research data using social media.

Wednesday was an unusual day, involving a trip to another university to examine a doctoral thesis. People often have lots to say about preparing for vivas from the student point of view, and in every university there will be stories to be heard about students’ (good and bad) doctoral examination experiences. Less is said about the experiences of examiners. In my view the invitation to examine a doctorate is an honour, and the occasion demands careful preparation. After all, we’re talking here about the culmination of years of work, folks. On this week’s and on the few other occasions in which I have examined I have, I hope, combined rigorous enquiry with respectful courtesy. This is certainly how my examiners were on the day of my viva, I’m pleased to say.

Thursday (yesterday) began with a meeting to review a contract, connected to a funded research project I’m involved in which formally commences at the start of next month. I learnt some new stuff along the way, including the distinctions between ‘background’ and ‘foreground’ intellectual property and copyright. Michael Coffey, Aled Jones, Jennifer Egbunike and I met to make practical plans for a segment of another project, led by Alan Simpson. This study is also involving Alison Faulkner (whose website, if she has one, I do not know), Jitka Jancova and (soon) Sally Barlow. All very productive and interesting, and I was pleased to round off the day in the office with an expected conversation with the clinical psychologist, Andrew Vidgen, about his work in early intervention in psychosis, my Connections and consequences paper, and a few other things besides.

January 18th 2013And today the snow came (check out this photo, revealing the red blob’s local snowfall), and as anticipated a large thesis chunk to read and review from my esteemed colleague, Pauline Tang, who is also a research student. Pauline is interested in the use of electronic patient records, and I am again reminded of the discipline and hard work required by part-time doctoral students who have to combine their studies with the day job. The equally esteemed Jane Davies, my longstanding friend and colleague and now a full time (pretty much) PhD student, also sent me some interesting initial reflections relating to her planned study of decision-making in adolescent cancer.

Running looks out of the question this weekend, and, for all I know, the coming week. Today’s deep snow will be tomorrow’s ice, and that stuff’s not to be run on. Long walks look a tantalising possibility, though.

Student nurses and degrees (once again)

Writing in today’s Guardian Peter Wilby asks ‘if our long love affair with education is coming to an end’. He refers back to this earlier article reporting a UK government announcement that future accountants, lawyers, engineers and others will be able to qualify without having a degree. Noting that the children of affluent parents do best in education, Wilby argues that the raising over time of the academic bar for entry to many professions has effectively blocked poorer children from getting a foothold.

I agree that we should be concerned over post-compulsory education becoming the preserve of the privileged few, which is why I believe charging tuition fees for university study is a bad policy likely to deter many from applying. I’m also reminded of the efforts that colleagues in my workplace go to in order that people with non-traditional educational backgrounds put themselves forward for university entry, and the work that goes on to help students succeed once they have enrolled. Like Peter Wilby, I too think that education should be something which people engage in over the course of a lifetime, and not in their first two or three decades only.

What I object to is that part of Wilby’s argument where he turns to nursing specifically and says, ‘As Ilora Findlay, professor of palliative medicine at Cardiff University, has put it, “a nurse can graduate without being able…to apply the scientific basis of illness to real patients or respecting the importance of hands-on care”. This is not a scenario I recognise. Student nurses spend half of their time on placement, and whilst there have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of their mentors their ability to perform in practice. This includes providing real care, to real patients.

For more on this, here’s a link back to an earlier post on this site referencing the Willis Commission on Nursing Education.