Search results

This preliminary investigation aims to examine the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients and staff within a high secure service.

To discern the connection between COVID-19-related distress and multiple factors, the study involved 31 patients and 34 staff who completed assessments evaluating coping strategies, resilience, emotional reactivity, ward atmosphere and work-related aspects.

Results demonstrated that around a third of staff (31.2%) experienced COVID-19-related distress levels that met the clinical cut-off for possible post-traumatic stress disorder. Emotional reactivity, staff shortages, secondary traumatic stress and coping strategies were all positively correlated with COVID-19-related-distress. Resilience was negatively associated with distress, thus acting as a potential mitigating factor. In comparison, the prevalence of distress among patients was low (3.2%).

The authors postulate that increased staff burdens during the pandemic may have led to long-term distress, while their efforts to maintain minimal service disruption potentially shielded patients from psychological impacts, possibly lead to staff “problem-focused coping burnout”. This highlights the need for in-depth research on the enduring impacts of pandemics, focusing on mechanisms that intensify or alleviate distress. Future studies should focus on identifying effective coping strategies for crisis situations, such as staff shortages, and strategies for post-crisis staff support.

The authors postulate that the added burdens on staff during the pandemic might have contributed to their distress. Nonetheless, staff might have inadvertently safeguarded patients from the pandemic’s psychological ramifications by providing a “service of little disruption”, potentially leading to “problem-focused coping burnout”. These findings underscore the imperative for further research capturing the enduring impacts of pandemics, particularly scrutinising factors that illuminate the mechanisms through which distress is either intensified or alleviated across different groups. An avenue worth exploring is identifying effective coping styles for pandemics.

Any topic can be sensitive, and every subject area will have sensitive issues and topics that academics in higher education and further education settings will be expected to negotiate. Your ability to negotiate sensitive topics is important because the ways in which you engage and teach about sensitive topics will affect your ability to provide a positive learning experience and teaching alliance with students. In practice, you will face enormous pressure to ‘deliver’ on teaching, which will only be mirrored by similar freedoms in deciding on how and what needs to be done to get students to where they need to be. Negotiating, identifying, preparing for and delivering teaching on sensitive subjects and topics can be difficult in individual academics. This chapter, seeks to prepare you for developing a deeper understanding of some of the philosophical, theoretical, and practical-based concerns and issues related to teaching sensitive topics and subjects. This chapter begins with providing a rationale for what follows, and it explores some of the key themes, positionality, identity, transformational learning and lived experience, that are explored in greater depth in the collection. This chapter also contains a detailed breakdown of the structure and the content of this edited collection, and it concludes with some reflective comments about the implications of the collection for you as an individual and your career.

The purpose of this paper is to share the learning concerning how services and the paid carers working in them can support people living with dementia (PLWD) and their unpaid carers to overcome social isolation. This learning comes from the key findings from a Social Return on Investment (SROI) evaluation of a Shared Lives (SL) Day support service, known as TRIO.

SROI is a form of cost-benefit analysis that captures and monetises stakeholder outcomes. The SROI evaluation included a rapid evidence review, an interview study and a questionnaire study. The learning shared is drawn from the interview and questionnaire data that explored the reported outcomes relating to social connection, which included data related to participating in meaningful activities, confidence and independence.

PLWD who accessed the SL Day support service experienced better social connection, a sense of control over their activities (including their social activities) and community presence. A key foundation of these outcomes was the meaningful relationship that developed between the PLWD, their unpaid carer and the paid carer.

This evaluation was a pilot study with a small, albeit representative sample size.

The learning suggests feasible and effective ways for paid carers to support the social connection of PLWD and their unpaid carers with their wider community.

There has been little exploration of how community-based short breaks (like SL Day support) can enhance social connection. The authors drew on a social relational model lens to illustrate how this service type had supported successful outcomes of community and social inclusion for PLWD.