Search results

A model is proposed which can be used to review clinical specialities in NHS hospitals. This framework will enable General Managers to use local staff to review specialities without them first having to develop a model or process. The model consists of a series of headings and examples of questions to be answered. The aims of such a review are proposed; the advantages, practicalities and problems of selecting a local reviewer and involving clinicians in the process are discussed; some of the problems of analysing activity data are mentioned. Once the review has been completed a Discussion Document is proposed which aims to simplify the discussion between clinicians and management. In this way, it will be possible to reach a mutually agreeable strategy to tackle problems of the future.

The aims of a project to introduce customer relations standards to a District Health Authority are discussed. The manner in which staff guidelines are produced and staff action programmes are developed is examined and ways in which the corporate identity of the Health Authority may be changed by improvements in customer services are explored.

This collaborative paper (working together) describes collaborative practice development and research by and with people from the learning disabilities community. This paper aims to show some of the activities which supported the collaborative practice development and research to show and encourage others to do more collaboration. The paper format is based on a previous collaborative paper published in the Tizard Learning Disability Review (Chapman et al., 2013).

The collaborative practice development and feasibility study [1] focuses on an intervention called Keep Safe. This is an intervention for young people with learning disabilities who are 12 years and older and have shown “out-of-control” or harmful sexual behaviour.

The paper gives examples of activities of the Keep Safe Advisory Group in planning, doing and thinking about Keep Safe development and feasibility. The authors list some good things and some difficulties in collaborating. They look at which parts of Frankena et al.’s (2019a) Consensus Statement on how to do inclusive research were done, which ones were not, and why.

The paper ends with some thoughts about collaborating with people from the learning disabilities community: for people with learning disabilities, practitioners and researchers.

The paper is original in its illustration of collaborative practice development and research and measuring the activities against the inclusive research consensus statement.

This article represents an attempt to uncover a suitable method of sociological enquiry, which can best understand and explore the experiences of the older, working class women of my research. Noting the historical, frustrating sense of absence of women in dominant knowledge claims (for example Beauvoir, 1997; Woolf, 1993; Rowbotham, 1973), the article seeks to complement post‐modern critiques of the autonomy of reason with feminist accounts of knowledge or “epistemologies”. The article documents the dislocation between my own epistemological assumptions and the women’s ways of knowing, and their attempts to defend themselves against my middle class interpretations of their working class lives. It offers a reflexive account of my own ethnographic research experiences, in order to help resolve some of the practical dilemmas faced by feminist researchers (Ribbens and Edwards, 1988). The article highlights some of the pains and pleasures of the feminist research experience.