Search results

Interprofessional collaboration is necessary for handling the complex psychosocial needs of prisoners. This collaboration must be addressed to avoid high recidivism rates and the human and societal costs linked to them. Challenges are exacerbated by a linear approach to handling prisoners’ problems, silo working between welfare agencies and professional boundaries between frontline workers. There are few adequate theoretical frameworks and tools to address these challenges in the prison context. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions that frontline staff working in Norwegian prison facilities have regarding interprofessional collaboration in providing mental health services for prisoners.

This study had a non-experimental, cross-sectional design to explore perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in a prison context. Descriptive and multifactorial analyses (exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis) were used to explore the data.

The analysis showed that three factors, communication, organizational culture and domain, explained 95% of the variance. Results are discussed using relational coordination, as well as the conceptual PINCOM model, as a theoretical framework.

Few studies explicitly explore collaboration between professionals in mental health and prison services despite its being a prerequisite to achieving sufficient services for prisoners. To our knowledge, this current study is one of the first in Norway to explore collaboration in a prison context by analysing quantitative data and focusing on frontline workers perception of the phenomenon.

Interprofessional collaboration is necessary when supporting mentally ill offenders but little is understood of these interactions. The purpose of this paper is to explore prison officers’ perceptions of current and desirable levels of interprofessional collaboration (relational coordination (RC)) to understand how collaboration between these systems can be improved.

Gittell’s RC scale was administered to prison officers within the Norwegian prison system (n=160) using an adaptation of the instrument in which actual and desired levels of RC are evaluated. This differentiates between prison officers’ expectations of optimum levels of collaboration with other professional groups, dependent on the role function and codependence, vs actual levels of collaboration.

Prison officers reported different RC levels across professional groups, the lowest being with specialist mental health staff and prison doctors and highest with nurses, social workers and other prison officers. Significant differences between desired and actual RC levels suggest expertise of primary care staff is insufficient, as prison officers request much greater contact with mental health specialists when dealing with the mentally ill offender.

The paper contributes to limited literature on collaborative practice between prison and health care professionals. It questions the advisability of enforcing care pathways that promote the lowest level of effective care in the prison system and suggest ways in which mental health specialists might be better integrated into the prison system. It contributes to the continued debate on how mental health services should be integrated into the prison system, suggesting that the current import model used in Norway and other countries, may not be conducive to generating the close professional relationships required between mental health and prison staff.

Many offenders struggle when attempting to reintegrate into society after release from prison, and the conditions they face after release often lead to reoffending. The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual model on reintegration after prison. The model has the potential to guide practitioners in their understanding of the relationships between welfare services and the agency of the offender.

The model was developed from a small-scale study in the Norwegian Criminal Justice system, which is well known for its emphasis on rehabilitation and crime prevention. Data collection aimed to explore the reintegration process from the perspective of the hard-to-reach and vulnerable population of serial offenders. Nine prisoners in two different prisons were interviewed. A thematic analysis identified two main themes that related, first, to the personal challenges the offenders faced in the rehabilitation and reintegration process and, second, to the factors in the welfare services that interacted with the prisoners’ psychosocial issues in the reintegration process.

Findings suggest that the interaction between the psychosocial needs of the prisoners and the organization of the welfare services is complex and does not harmonize. The findings underpin the argument that the current reintegration strategies for certain groups of inmates need to be questioned and challenged.

The model is a conceptual model intended to provide a lens from which to reinterpret offenders’ experiences of reintegration and applied to only the small and exploratory study described in this paper. As such, it requires further testing and substantiation, and the model and the study’s findings should be regarded as tentative and cannot be generalized to a larger population. The prisoners were selected by the first author for convenience, and it is possible that this also influenced the findings. Other inmates may have presented other experiences.

There are few studies looking into reintegration from the reoffenders’ perspective, and this study also presents a model that serves as a reflective and analytical tool to developing new approaches to supporting offenders in their reintegration into society from prison in the future.

Effective collaboration between mental health services (MHS) and criminal justice services (CJS) impacts on mental illness and reduces reoffending rates. This paper proposes the change laboratory model (CLM) of workplace transformation as a potential tool to support interagency collaborative practice that has potential to complement current integration tools used in this context. The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on the theoretical dimension of the model: the cultural historical activity systems theory (CHAT) as a theoretical perspective that offers a framework with which interactions between the MHS and CJS can be better understood.

The structure and rationale behind future piloting of the change laboratory in this context is made. Then CHAT theory is briefly introduced and then its utility illustrated in the presentation of the findings of a qualitative study of leaders from MHS and CJS that explored their perspectives of the characteristics of collaborative working between MHS and prison/probation services in a Norwegian context and using CHAT as an analytical framework.

Leaders suggested that interactions between the two services, within the Norwegian system at least, are most salient when professionals engage in the reintegration and rehabilitation of the offender. Achieving effective communication within the boundary space between the two systems is a focus for professionals engaging in interagency working and this is mediated by a range of integration tools such as coordination plans and interagency meetings. Formalised interagency agreements and informal, unspoken norms of interaction governed this activity. Key challenges limiting the collaboration between the two systems included resource limitations, logistical issues and differences in professional judgments on referral and confidentiality.

Current tools with which MHS/CJS interactions are understood and managed, fail to make explicit the dimensions and nature of these complex interactions. The CLM, and CHAT as its theoretical underpinning, has been highly successful internationally and in other clinical contexts, as a means of exploring and developing interagency working. It is a new idea in prison development, none as yet being applied to the challenges facing the MHS and CJS. This paper addresses this by illustrating the use of CHAT as an analytical framework with which to articulate MHS/CJS collaborations and the potential of the CLM more widely to address current challenges in a context specific, bottom-up and fluid approach to interagency working in this environment.

This paper aims to investigate the conditions under which learning and innovation occur within nursing homes by focusing on how the dynamics of the distribution and transformation of ideas and knowledge may be viewed as a prerequisite for innovation in both formal, planned learning situations and informal, everyday practices.

Data was produced via fieldwork, which included participant observations, conversations and research interviews with staff and managers at a Norwegian nursing home. The paper is inspired by situated learning theories and communities of practice, as the social context emerges as the site where learning and innovation are cultivated.

The nursing home sustains learning at the centre of its enterprise through managers’ and staff’s participation in planned learning situations and thereby highlights a focus on learning in their everyday practices. The conditions for the interplay between planned learning situations and everyday learning workplace practices are identified as the effort to create a joint enterprise and reflexive practices.

The Global North is ageing. Consequently, there is an increasing need for facilities and adequately trained professionals to support an ageing population. Addressing these challenges will require an increased focus on developing supportive learning environments and furthering our knowledge about the interconnections between learning processes and innovation.

This paper contributes knowledge regarding nursing homes as professionally exciting places to work alongside conditions that allow for learning and innovation to be cultivated and thereby increase the quality of elderly healthcare services provided.

Healthcare providers are under pressure due to increasing and more complex demands for services. Increased pressure on budgets and human resources adds to an ever-growing problem set. Competent leaders are in demand to ensure effective and well-performing healthcare organisations that deliver balanced results and high-quality services. Researchers have made significant efforts to identify and define determining competencies for healthcare leadership. Broad terms such as competence are, however, inherently at risk of becoming too generic to add analytical value. The purpose of this study is to suggest a holistic framework for understanding healthcare leadership competence, that can be crucial for operationalising important healthcare leadership competencies for researchers, decision-makers as well as practitioners.

In the present study, a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) was conducted to analyse competency descriptions for healthcare leaders. The descriptions were retrieved from peer reviewed empirical studies published between 2010 and 2022 that aimed to identify healthcare services leadership competencies. Grounded theory was utilised to code the data and inductively develop new categories of healthcare leadership competencies. The categorisation was then analysed to suggest a holistic framework for healthcare leadership competence.

Forty-one papers were included in the review. Coding and analysing the competence descriptions resulted in 12 healthcare leadership competence categories: (1) character, (2) interpersonal relations, (3) leadership, (4) professionalism, (5) soft HRM, (6) management, (7) organisational knowledge, (8) technology, (9) knowledge of the healthcare environment, (10) change and innovation, (11) knowledge transformation and (12) boundary spanning. Based on this result, a holistic framework for understanding and analysing healthcare services leadership competencies was suggested. This framework suggests that the 12 categories of healthcare leadership competencies include a range of knowledge, skills and abilities that can be understood across the dimension personal – and technical, and organisational internal and – external competencies.

This literature review was conducted with the results of searching only two electronic databases. Because of this, there is a chance that there exist empirical studies that could have added to the development of the competence categories or could have contradicted some of the descriptions used in this analysis that were assessed as quite harmonised. A CIS also opens for a broader search, including the grey literature, books, policy documents and so on, but this study was limited to peer-reviewed empirical studies. This limitation could also have affected the result, as complex phenomenon such as competence might have been disclosed in greater details in, for example, books.

The holistic framework for healthcare leadership competences offers a common understanding of a “fuzzy” concept such as competence and can be used to identify specific competency needs in healthcare organisations, to develop strategic competency plans and educational programmes for healthcare leaders.

This study reveals a lack of consensus regarding the use and understanding of the concept of competence, and that key competencies addressed in the included papers are described vastly different in terms of what knowledge, skills and abilities they entail. This challenges the operationalisation of healthcare services leadership competencies. The proposed framework for healthcare services leadership competencies offers a common understanding of work-related competencies and a possibility to analyse key leadership competencies based on a holistic framework.