Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a qualitative evaluation of a learning initiative between different mental health professional groups, the Collaborative Learning Initiative (CLI). These qualitative results are after the first year of a two year evaluation of the CLI in which social work, clinical psychology and nursing students together with post-registration medics undertook a sequence of joint learning in relation to mental health theory and practice.

In total, 81 post-course evaluations were qualitatively analysed using a process of thematic analysis based on the guidelines outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). Each academic involved with the CLI thematically analysed the post-course evaluations from their discipline. Following the generation of key themes each set of evaluations was separately analysed by an academic from a different professional discipline associated with the initiative.

The evaluation of this initiative demonstrates that the model of interdisciplinary teaching whereby service user and carers facilitating small group working is an effective model for delivering interprofessional mental health education. The paper highlights the convergent and divergent themes between the different groups involved in the initiative. Most of the social work, medics, nursing and all clinical psychology participants evaluated the programme positively, however some of the themes were not positive and these are also discussed within the paper.

Based on this qualitative evaluation, the evaluation of the service user and carer small group facilitators and observations by the CLI organizers, changes will be made to the second year of the evaluation cycle and these changes are highlighted in the paper. The uniqueness and value of this initiative lies in both having service users and carers involved in the design, delivery, evaluation and dissemination of the CLI and also in the strength of having four professional disciplines involved. Limitations of the study are highlighted.

Estimation of (in)efficiency became a popular practice that witnessed applications in virtually any sector of the economy over the last few decades. Many different models were deployed for such endeavors, with Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) models dominating the econometric literature. Among the most popular variants of SFA are Aigner, Lovell, and Schmidt (1977), which launched the literature, and Kumbhakar, Ghosh, and McGuckin (1991), which pioneered the branch taking account of the (in)efficiency term via the so-called environmental variables or determinants of inefficiency. Focusing on these two prominent approaches in SFA, the goal of this chapter is to try to understand the production inefficiency of public hospitals in Queensland. While doing so, a recognized yet often overlooked phenomenon emerges where possible dramatic differences (and consequently very different policy implications) can be derived from different models, even within one paradigm of SFA models. This emphasizes the importance of exploring many alternative models, and scrutinizing their assumptions, before drawing policy implications, especially when such implications may substantially affect people’s lives, as is the case in the hospital sector.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.