Biomedical subjects

J Leaviss

Publications and source records attributed to J Leaviss.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Perceived safety of donor blood and blood substitutes for transfusion: the role of informational frame, patient groups and stress appraisals.

Patients express concerns about the safety of donated blood. Do they have similar concerns about potential 'blood substitutes' and does the way information is presented on these options alter patients' perceptions? A two (informational frame: gain or loss) by four (transfusion type: human donor blood, human haemoglobin, bovine haemoglobin or perfluorocarbon emulsion substitutes) by three (patient group: adult haemophiliac/leukaemia patients, relatives/friends of haemophiliac/leukaemia patients and controls) between-subjects design was used. There were 82 patients, 118 relatives/friends and 263 controls from the UK. Blood substitutes were perceived as being significantly less safe than donor blood. Perceptions of safety were greater when transfusion information (regardless of transfusion type or patient group) was presented as gains rather than losses. Different demographic and psychological factors predicted perceived safety (e.g. sex) and perceived risk (e.g. age and experience).

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Exploring the perceived effect of an undergraduate multiprofessional educational intervention.

CONTEXT: Improved teamwork and greater collaboration between professions are important factors in effective health care. These goals may be achieved by including interprofessional learning in the undergraduate medical curriculum. The Faculty of Medicine at the University of Liverpool organized a pilot two-day multiprofessional course involving all the health care related disciplines. OBJECTIVE: The present study examined the perceived effect of the multiprofessional course on the work practice of these newly qualified health care professionals. METHOD: The views of former students who took part in the pilot course were collected using a semi-structured interview schedule and analysed using a qualitative data analysis software package QSR NU*DIST. RESULTS: Two main themes emerged. These centred around role knowledge and interprofessional attitudes. Data indicated that participants perceived the course to have increased their knowledge of the other professions and that this effect had persisted. Reported benefits to their working practice included facilitating appropriate referrals, increasing professional empathy and awareness of other professionals' skills, raising confidence and heightening awareness of the holistic nature of patient treatment. Participants reported forming negative attitudes towards other professions during their undergraduate education. They believed these had been partly encouraged by course tutors. The pilot course was perceived to have had had little effect on these attitudes. Changes occurred once the newly qualified professionals started work. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the idea that interprofessional educational interventions must be tailored to specific learning goals to be implemented successfully, and that interprofessional education should be prolonged and widespread to have a real impact.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed2000

Putting teamwork in context.

Multidisciplinary teamwork is becoming more important in both the delivery of health care and in the organization and management of that delivery. The first of these has been accepted but traditional professional education has done little to address the challenge it presents to professionals. Recent reforms in the British NHS have made the challenge more urgent. Professionals must work together but in increasingly flexible and innovatory ways. They are also required to play more formal roles in NHS management and policy. Where teamwork has been addressed in professional education it has concentrated on the inter-personal dynamics of working teams. This remains important but to respond effectively to the new challenges curricula and educational practice will have to be clearer about the variety of teams involved and the importance of the context within which teams work. One view is offered as to how that context might be understood in order to map team diversity. Two models are offered to help develop multidisciplinary team learning. One of these deals with key aspects of the organizational setting and the other with factors that affect team processes. It is argued that both should help to facilitate multidisciplinary curriculum development but also suggest learning needs to be met within unidisciplinary professional education. Concentration on team dynamics alone will not deliver the teamwork required in the new NHS.

Curriculum↗