Search results

I want first to relate the Rules and their preparation to as wide a professional canvas as possible. Secondly, I intend to connect that relationship with the principles upon which the Rules have been based and upon which their structure has been built. And finally I would like to describe briefly how their value has so far been established and related to current library services.

Relational dynamics between patients and staff in forensic settings can be complicated and demanding for both sides. Reflective practice groups (RPGs) bring clinicians together to reflect on these dynamics. To date, evaluation of RPGs has lacked quantitative focus and a suitable quantitative tool. Therefore, a self-report tool was designed. This paper aims to pilot The Relational Aspects of CarE (TRACE) scale with clinicians in a high-secure hospital and investigate its psychometric properties.

A multi-professional sample of 80 clinicians were recruited, completing TRACE and attitudes to personality disorder questionnaire (APDQ). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) determined factor structure and internal consistency of TRACE. A subset was selected to measure test–retest reliability. TRACE was cross-validated against the APDQ.

EFA found five factors underlying the 20 TRACE items: “awareness of common responses,” “discussing and normalising feelings;” “utilising feelings,” “wish to care” and “awareness of complicated affects.” This factor structure is complex, but items clustered logically to key areas originally used to generate items. Internal consistency (α = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.55–0.76) demonstrated borderline acceptability. TRACE demonstrated good test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.78–0.98) and face validity. TRACE indicated a slight negative correlation with APDQ. A larger data set is needed to substantiate these preliminary findings.

Early indications suggested TRACE was valid and reliable, suitable to measure the effectiveness of reflective practice.

The TRACE was a distinctive measure that filled a methodological gap in the literature.