Search results

Improving Global Health is a one year leadership scheme which places trainee doctors and more experienced nurses, midwives and AHPs in a developing country (Cambodia or Tanzania) to develop leadership and quality improvement skills while contributing to Millennium goals in the developing countries. The purpose of this paper is to report on an independent evaluation of the programme, with the purpose of highlighting lessons learned to inform other leadership development initiatives, and in particular to highlight the vital importance of a receptive NHS environment if maximum value is to be gained from investment in clinical leadership.

The evaluation methodology comprised literature review; review of documentation, including on line questionnaires to Fellows; interviews with stakeholders and attendance at key scheme events in July‐September 2011. Fellows who had completed an overseas placement in either Cambodia or Tanzania during 2009‐2010 were interviewed using a semi structured questionnaire. Mentors and Steering Group members were interviewed using an amended version of the Fellows' questionnaire.

Impact was found at the level of personal development; working collaboratively; and understanding the value of audit, teaching and quality improvement. There was some impact on the NHS, however, the majority of Fellows struggled to find opportunities to apply their learning immediately on return from their overseas placement.

Resource and time constraints meant that achievements in meeting Millennium goals were excluded from the evaluation; the authors' working assumption is that only Fellows who enjoyed the Fellowship responded to the invitation to take part; judging the extent to which the Fellowship meets its goal of creating a cadre of improvement champions in the NHS will require time to elapse.

Lessons from implementation of this Fellowship scheme are transferable to the wider NHS.

The paper provides lessons on the design of leadership schemes intended to develop quality improvement skills, particularly for clinicians at an early career stage, illustrates the potential of a placement in a developing country to achieve this, and highlights the importance of a receptive NHS environment to realise maximum benefit from investment in leadership development.

There is robust evidence that good teamwork is essential to the delivery of high‐quality healthcare. This paper reports on a leadership intervention to improve team‐working in multidisciplinary clinical teams and the health outcomes of those populations served by them. The Shared Leadership for Change initiative was funded and managed by The Health Foundation as part of its portfolio of leadership awards. The initiative sought to support the development of ‘shared’ leadership in the teams through the intervention of specially trained and supported leadership development consultants who worked with clinical teams delivering diabetes care working across primary and secondary sectors. The paper explains the rationale underpinning the approach, describes how the intervention was operationalied, and presents findings on its impact to date. The authors conclude by advocating that given the right context this intervention is an effective approach that leads to improved clinical team effectiveness and better multidisciplinary working in modern healthcare. The difficulties of ascribing any improvements in clinical outcomes or the patient experience to the interventions are also explored.

In 2002/3 the Health Foundation launched an ambitious five‐year Programme of investment in leadership development. This investment included resource for simultaneous evaluation (Lucas 2006). Against a background of unprecedented upheaval in healthcare systems in the UK, the Leadership Programme has evolved, encompassing initiatives aimed both at individuals and teams. The Programme has been refined to provide a more explicit focus on leadership for quality improvement. This article reviews what has been learnt from this investment to date, focusing on lessons both for practitioners and for academics.The focus of this paper is what has been learnt from running the Foundation's three individual leadership schemes over the past three years. The authors argue that to be effective talent spotting needs to develop rigorous mechanisms for identification of potential; that there needs to be a sustained focus on quality improvement outcomes if leadership programmes are to deliver more than personal development; that the most effective development is work rather than classroom‐based; and that organisational commitment for leadership development is critical if the full impact is to be realised. The authors draw on an extensive evidence base from the Programme evaluation, including some case studies.

Purpose: This chapter proposes narrative allyship across ability as a practice in which nondisabled researchers work with disabled nonresearchers to co-construct a process that centers and acts on the knowledge contained in and expressed by the lived experience of the disabled nonresearchers. This chapter situates narrative allyship across ability in the landscape of other participatory research practices, with a particular focus on oral history as a social justice praxis.

Approach: In order to explore the potential of this practice, the author outlines and reflects on both the methodology of her oral history graduate thesis work, a narrative project with self-advocates with Down syndrome, and includes and analyzes reflections about narrative allyship from a self-advocate with Down syndrome.

Findings: The author proposes three guiding principles for research as narrative allyship across ability, namely that such research further the interests of narrators as the narrators define them, optimize the autonomy of narrators, and tell stories with, instead of about, narrators.

Implications: This chapter suggests the promise of research praxis as a form of allyship: redressing inequality by addressing power, acknowledging expertise in subjugated knowledges, and connecting research practices to desires for social change or political outcomes. The author models methods by which others might include in their research narrative work across ability and demonstrates the particular value of knowledge produced when researchers attend to the lived expertise of those with disabilities. The practice of narrative allyship across ability has the potential to bring a wide range of experiences and modes of expression into the domains of research, history, policy, and culture that would otherwise exclude them.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on Oldreive and Waight's article on enabling access to information by people with learning disabilities.

The article reflects on the issues raised by Oldreive and Waight, drawing on 25 years' experience and research.

Accessible information needs to be tailored to the individual and part of a wider approach to improving access.

We should not rely on “easy read”. Instead we should be prepared to offer individualised support to people with learning disabilities, using “easy read” as a tool.

It is unlikely that any technology will replace support from skilled people.

The issues discussed provide a reminder that translating information does not equate to inclusion.