Biomedical subjects

Lisa McNally

Publications and source records attributed to Lisa McNally.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

The introduction of a new assessment system in restorative dentistry: the undergraduate and patient experience.

In 2000, the University of Bristol Dental School Division of Restorative Dentistry carried out a review of the assessment methods used within the undergraduate programme. Following this review, a number of key recommendations were made and the system of formative assessment within the division was changed. Audits were conducted immediately prior to the introduction of the new system and 2 years after it had been introduced, the results of these audits are presented. There was no change in the number of failed appointments between the initial audit and the second audit. There was a reduction in the number of patients treated by more than one student from 25% to 14% (approximating to 3% if student withdrawal from the course is taken into account). The length of time taken to complete treatment reduced between the two audits with more than half of all patients having their treatment completed within 3 months of their initial examination in the second audit. Ninety-five percent of treatment plans were completed in the second audit compared with only 62% in the first audit. In the second audit, the outstanding 5% of cases were signed off as incomplete for satisfactory reasons by the member of supervisory staff (e.g. patients who had moved away or were discharged due to poor attendance). Student comments were mostly positive, the small number of negative comments related to some students being confused by the paperwork in the new system. The overall process has been an extremely positive experience which has resulted in an assessment system with increased clarity which appears to have reduced the stress levels reported by the undergraduate students on the programme and improved the quality of patient care within restorative dentistry.

Dental Audit↗

PubMed2006

A survey of staff attitudes to smoking-related policy and intervention in psychiatric and general health care settings.

BACKGROUND: Although the move to smoke-free hospital settings is generally a popular initiative, it may be a more challenging and controversial issue in mental health care. A survey was carried out to investigate differences in attitudes between clinical staff in psychiatric and general medical settings to smoke-free policy and intervention. METHOD: The sample comprised 2574 NHS staff working in two Acute Hospital Trusts and one Mental Health Trust in England. Attitudes were examined on two factors: health care settings as smoke-free environments and the role of staff in stop smoking intervention. RESULTS: The findings indicated that attitudes on the two factors were only moderately correlated. Psychiatric staff expressed significantly less favourable attitudes than general staff to smoke-free health care settings and also to the role of staff in stop smoking intervention. The largest difference between the settings concerned the implementation of smoking bans. While approximately 1 in 10 staff in the general setting disagreed with a smoking ban in their wards or clinics, nearly one in three psychiatric staff was against such a ban in their setting. CONCLUSIONS: Staff attitudes need to be carefully considered, particularly in psychiatric settings, in attempts to implement smoke-free policies in health care settings.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2002

Satisfaction with respite care: a pilot study.

Satisfaction with respite care may be bound up with a variety of factors. The interaction of social support with ratings of a carer's satisfaction with respite care has not been explored in published work. The present authors postulated that social support, both during caring and during periods of relief from caring whilst in receipt of respite care, would be associated with greater satisfaction with respite care. They embarked upon a pilot study of carers who were looking after dependants with dementia, a particularly demanding form of care. Previously validated scales were used for determining levels of social support, and for assessing possible confounding factors such as carer depression or strain. One hundred and forty carers were contacted, but only 26 completed the questionnaires. In terms of perceived benefit to the carer, satisfaction was high (rating scale = 1-7, mean = 5.8, mode = 7) and correlated significantly with the numbers of people in the social support network (r = 0.57, P = 0.002), albeit not with any of the four measured types of support which they may have provided. Carer satisfaction was not significantly correlated with carer strain nor depression scores. Regression analysis demonstrated that 17% of the variance in this satisfaction score was accounted for by the numbers in the social support network. Other factors did not significantly explain the observed variation.

Caregivers↗