Search results

Evidence-based hydration care for older people is essential to health and wellbeing. However, practices vary, leading to negative outcomes for older people, particularly in relation to increased incidence of morbidity and mortality. As a discrete work package situated within a larger study to enhance hydration care for older people in care homes, the purpose of this part of the study was to develop a hydration competency framework to support an evidence-based approach to practice.

An overview of the literature informing hydration care was undertaken to establish best practice, resulting in the generation of a series of competency statements. Using a co-production approach, these statements were reviewed and assimilated into a hydration competency framework that was piloted across two care home sites. Revision and refinement of the framework was undertaken in response to feedback from the co-production group, until consensus was reached to agree the final iteration.

The hydration competency framework has three core domains relating to: understanding the individual daily hydration requirements of older people; assessing the individual daily hydration requirements of older people; implementing person-centred care to maintain and monitor the daily hydration requirement needs of older people. Each domain is comprised of competency statements that reflect the current evidence base informing best practice for hydration care for older people.

The hydration competency framework provides an innovative tool that can be used to support care home staff to deliver evidence-based hydration practices and positively enhance care outcomes for older people.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prisons faced a unique challenge of preventing and managing outbreaks with minimal adverse impact. This study aims to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 in prisons, identify lessons learnt and make recommendations.

The authors used the PubMed advanced search function using MeSH terms; (coronavirus, sars) AND (prisons) AND (disease outbreaks). The authors included original research reporting COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons. All other types and non-English publications were excluded. The authors used a structured data abstraction template to extract data systematically, and a second author independently abstracted data from 10% of the papers for quality assurance.

The search yielded 96 hits. The authors included 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. These studies were from four countries. Seven studies reported individual outbreaks. The mean and median number of inmates and staff were 1,765, 1,126 and 575, 510. The mean and median number of cases among inmates and staff were 584, 464, and 72, 77. The number of reported deaths varied from 0 to 11. The authors present the prison-specific hazards grouped under human factors, healthcare factors and environmental factors. The authors also summarise interventions deployed as either primary prevention interventions, such as vaccinations, or secondary prevention interventions, including screening and contact tracing.

This narrative review summarises the prison-specific hazards, which include movement of people in and out of the person, moving in new prisoners from other prisons, mixing of prisoners when transporting to courts, limited medical and isolation resources, crowded dormitories, shared lavatories, small communal facilities, poor ventilation and overcrowding. The interventions included limiting non-medical transfers into and out of the persons, assigning staff members to specific areas, encouraging face coverings among prisoners and staff and social isolation measures within the constraints of the prison setting. The interventions were adopted by prison authorities to contain and manage the outbreaks. Public Health and prison authorities need to be aware of the risk of further outbreaks of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases in these settings and implement key measures identified in this review to minimise adverse outcomes.

The study empirically explores employees' motives for engaging in constructive voice behaviors.

The authors utilized qualitative research methods. The data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews with 26 workers in the renewable energy industry in Kenya. The data were analyzed using a phronetic iterative approach (Tracy, 2020).

The data revealed various motives that may drive constructive voice including, personal (e.g. material rewards and emotional gratification), relational (e.g. advocating for others and diluting opposition) and organizational motives (e.g. ensuring organizational survival and bolstering innovation). Additionally, the authors illustrated how these motives may evolve and/or jointly drive constructive voice.

Although voice scholars are beginning to recognize the existence of other motives besides prosocial, the knowledge of such motives has remained theoretical. This is one of the first studies to empirically examine motives for constructive voice. By unveiling the motives, the findings demonstrate different pathways through which a voice opportunity transforms into a constructive voice behavior.

This chapter focuses on the contextual conditions around which entrepreneurship is a positive option for individuals on the autism spectrum. Drawing on omnibus and discrete context (Johns, 2006) and on research on other forms for neurodiversity and entrepreneurship, this chapter explains the who, what, where, when, and why of entrepreneurship and autism. Aimed at encouraging future scholarship in this under-research area, the chapter underlines the connections between entrepreneurship and common characteristics of individuals on the spectrum, issues of motivation and self-efficacy, the option of social entrepreneurship, and the importance of formal and informal support networks.

This study aims to uncover the constraints of automation and the affordances of augmentation related to implementing artificial intelligence (AI)-powered systems across different task types: mechanical, thinking and feeling.

Qualitative study involving 45 interviews with various stakeholders in artistic gymnastics, for which AI-powered systems for the judging process are currently developed and tested. Stakeholders include judges, gymnasts, coaches and a technology vendor.

We identify perceived constraints of automation, such as too much mechanization, preciseness and inability of the system to evaluate artistry or to provide human interaction. Moreover, we find that the complexity and impreciseness of the rules prevent automation. In addition, we identify affordances of augmentation such as speedier, fault-less, more accurate and objective evaluation. Moreover, augmentation affords to provide an explanation, which in turn may decrease the number of decision disputes.

While the unique context of our study is revealing, the generalizability of our specific findings still needs to be established. However, the approach of considering task types is readily applicable in other contexts.

Our research provides useful insights for organizations that consider implementing AI for evaluation in terms of possible constraints, risks and implications of automation for the organizational practices and human agents while suggesting augmented AI-human work as a more beneficial approach in the long term.

Our granular approach provides a novel point of view on AI implementation, as our findings challenge the notion of full automation of mechanical and partial automation of thinking tasks. Therefore, we put forward augmentation as the most viable AI implementation approach. In addition, we developed a rich understanding of the perception of various stakeholders with a similar institutional background, which responds to recent calls in socio-technical research.