Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Community of practice'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Start to type the tag you want to use, then select from the list.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • All
    • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Culture
    • Improving patient safety
    • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Leadership for patient safety
    • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Patient engagement
    • Patient safety in health and care
    • Patient Safety Learning
    • Professionalising patient safety
    • Research, data and insight
    • Miscellaneous


  • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Commissioning and funding patient safety
    • Digital health and care service provision
    • Health records and plans
    • Innovation programmes in health and care
    • Climate change/sustainability
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Blogs
    • Data, research and statistics
    • Frontline insights during the pandemic
    • Good practice and useful resources
    • Guidance
    • Mental health
    • Exit strategies
    • Patient recovery
    • Questions around Government governance
  • Culture
    • Bullying and fear
    • Good practice
    • Occupational health and safety
    • Safety culture programmes
    • Second victim
    • Speak Up Guardians
    • Staff safety
    • Whistle blowing
  • Improving patient safety
    • Clinical governance and audits
    • Design for safety
    • Disasters averted/near misses
    • Equipment and facilities
    • Error traps
    • Health inequalities
    • Human factors (improving human performance in care delivery)
    • Improving systems of care
    • Implementation of improvements
    • International development and humanitarian
    • Safety stories
    • Stories from the front line
    • Workforce and resources
  • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Investigations and complaints
    • Risk management and legal issues
  • Leadership for patient safety
    • Business case for patient safety
    • Boards
    • Clinical leadership
    • Exec teams
    • Inquiries
    • International reports
    • National/Governmental
    • Patient Safety Commissioner
    • Quality and safety reports
    • Techniques
    • Other
  • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Government and ALB direction and guidance
    • International patient safety
    • Regulators and their regulations
  • Patient engagement
    • Consent and privacy
    • Harmed care patient pathways/post-incident pathways
    • How to engage for patient safety
    • Keeping patients safe
    • Patient-centred care
    • Patient Safety Partners
    • Patient stories
  • Patient safety in health and care
    • Care settings
    • Conditions
    • Diagnosis
    • High risk areas
    • Learning disabilities
    • Medication
    • Mental health
    • Men's health
    • Patient management
    • Social care
    • Transitions of care
    • Women's health
  • Patient Safety Learning
    • Patient Safety Learning campaigns
    • Patient Safety Learning documents
    • 2-minute Tuesdays
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2018
    • Patient Safety Learning Awards 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Interviews
    • Patient Safety Learning webinars
  • Professionalising patient safety
    • Accreditation for patient safety
    • Competency framework
    • Medical students
    • Patient safety standards
    • Training & education
  • Research, data and insight
    • Data and insight
    • Research
  • Miscellaneous


  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start

Last updated

  • Start

Filter by number of...


  • Start



First name

Last name


Join a private group (if appropriate)

About me



Found 7 results
  1. Content Article
    A recent blog I wrote (see link below) brings together key information for clinicians, and especially for prescribers, from a variety of sources, including patients, relatives and carers. The aim is to help to prevent patients with autism and learning disabilities being harmed by inappropriate medicines. I began this in 2018 following the death of Oliver McGowan, which I cover in teaching for (non-medical) prescribing students and in my clinical education work. It links to the NHS Learning Disability Mortality (LeDeR) Review Programme. Key points: Most of the prescribing in this area is ‘off label’ (#jargonbuster – that’s medicines prescribed for something that isn’t listed as an ‘indication’ for that medicine ). This prescribing can include multiple anti-psychotic medicines, often medicines in the same class. There is a limited evidence base for this type of prescribing. Psychotropic medicines in people with learning disabilities who show symptoms of distress are not always prescribed by a specialist in this area. Diagnostic overshadowing may lead to inappropriate prescribing. This is the attribution of a person’s symptoms to their mental condition, when such symptoms actually suggest a comorbid condition. Further resources: The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training in Learning Disability and Autism – “Oliver’s Story” Presentation: Stopping over-medication in people with learning disabilities – 'Reasonable adjustment' Learning Disabilities Mortality Review annual reports University of Bristol: Learning Disabilities Mortality Review
  2. Community Post
    Some years ago I stopped writing for journals, in favour of blogging & volgging. My reasons were: I specialise in patient involvement and inclusion, so I want the work of me and my colleagues to be easily found by everyone We didn't want our work to end up behind a paywall We work across disciplines and try to bypass hierarchies, especially in promoting action learning and patient led care I can see there are some really good Open Access Journals around. So my question for us all is: Which are the best Open Access Journals? Here a link to my digital profile: https://linktr.ee/stevemedgov This is our developing model of working, a away of working in healthcare that all use and participate in:
  3. Content Article
    Background In 2018, SIM was selected for national scaling and spread across the Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs). The High Intensity Network (HIN) has been working with the three south London Secondary Mental Health Trusts: The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust and South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, and the Metropolitan Police, London Ambulance Service, A&E, CCG commissioners, and the innovator and Network Director of the High Intensity Network. The model can be summarised as: A more integrated, informed, calm approach in the way we respond to individuals that have unique needs during a crisis and A better form of multi-skilled, personalised support after the crisis event is over. So in July 2013 the Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) model of care was proposed. This is how it works: SIM brings together all the key urgent care agencies involved in responding to high-intensity crisis service users around the table, once a month. This multi-agency panel selects each individual based on demand/risk data and professional referrals. They use a national 5-point assessment process to ensure that the right clients are chosen and in a way where we can ensure a delicate balance between their rights as an individual but our need to safeguard. Selected individuals are then allocated to a SIM intervention team. The SIM team is led principally by a mental health professional (who leads clinically) and a police officer (who leads on behaviour, community safety, risk and impact). The team supports each patient, to better understand their crises and to identify healthier and safer ways to cope. In the most intensive, harmful or impactive cases, the team also does everything it can to prevent the need for criminal justice intervention. Together, the mental health clinician, the police officer and the service user together create a safer crisis plan that 999 responders can find and use 24 hours day. The crisis plan is then disseminated across the emergency services. The SIM team reinforces these plans by training, briefing and advising front line responders in how to use the plans and how to make confident, consistent, higher quality decisions. What are the benefits and risks of this approach? Benefits: It is claimed that this is a more integrated, calm and informed approach to responding to individuals in crisis and the HIN provides "better multi-skilled, personalised support after a crisis event was over". The HIN website states: "Across the UK, emergency and healthcare services respond every minute to people in mental health crisis and calls of this nature are increasing each year. But did you know that as much as 70% of this demand is caused by a small number of ‘high-intensity users’ who struggle with complex trauma and behavioural disorders? These disorders often expose the patient to higher levels of risk and harm and can simultaneously cause intensive demand on police, ambulance, A&E departments, and mental health crisis teams." Risks: This approach has been subject to strong criticism from some users of mental health services, mental health clinicians and mental health support organisations. Concerns have been raised about whether the HIN/SIM approach is safe, effective or appropriate. I believe we need an open and inclusive discussion about High Intensity Networks, with users of mental services leading the debate. As a former mental health nurse in an Assertive Outreach team I'm keen to learn: How users of services were involved in the initial development of the model? What are the similarities and differences between High Intensity Networks and an Assertive Outreach model? How this approach compares with approaches in other countries? How users of services are involved in evaluating and adapting the model? What the specific benefits are for users of services and are there any risks to this approach? Does this lead to a long term improvements for users of services? I hope people will feel able to contribute openly to this discussion, so we can learn together. #HighIntensityNetwork #mentalhealth
  4. Content Article
    'To support all prescribers in prescribing safely and effectively, a single prescribing competency framework was originally published by the National Prescribing Centre/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2012. NICE and Health Education England approached the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) to manage the update of the framework on behalf of all the prescribing professions in the UK. A Competency Framework for all Prescribers was first published by the RPS in July 2016. Going forward, the RPS will continue to maintain and publish this framework in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary group with representatives from professional regulators, professional organisations, prescribers from all prescribing professions, lay representatives and other relevant and interested stakeholder groups from across the UK. ' Since the 2016 framework, there have been various changes that needed to be included in the update of the framework, these include: Legislation changes introducing paramedic prescribers in April 2018. Current prescribing topics, such as remote prescribing, social prescribing, psychosocial assessment and eco-directed sustainable prescribing. Publication of the RPS Competency Framework for Designated Prescribing Practitioners in December 2019; for further information, please see 'A competency framework for designated prescribing practitioners'. Supporting tools
  5. Content Article
    'Dr Lucy Johnstone, one of the lead authors of the Power Threat Meaning Framework, said: "The Power Threat Meaning Framework can be used as a way of helping people to create more hopeful narratives or stories about their lives and the difficulties they have faced or are still facing, instead of seeing themselves as blameworthy, weak, deficient or ‘mentally ill’. It highlights and clarifies the links between wider social factors such as poverty, discrimination and inequality, along with traumas such as abuse and violence, and the resulting emotional distress or troubled behaviour, whether it is confusion, fear, despair or troubled or troubling behaviour. It also shows why those of us who do not have an obvious history of trauma or adversity can still struggle to find a sense of self-worth, meaning and identity.“ In traditional mental health practice, threat responses are sometimes called ‘symptoms’. The Framework instead looks at how we make sense of these experiences and how messages from wider society can increase our feelings of shame, self-blame, isolation, fear and guilt. The approach of the Framework is summarised in four questions that can apply to individuals, families or social groups: What has happened to you? (How is power operating in your life?) How did it affect you? (What kind of threats does this pose?) What sense did you make of it? (What is the meaning of these situations and experiences to you?) What did you have to do to survive? (What kinds of threat response are you using?) Two further questions help us think about what skills and resources people might have and how they might pull all these ideas and responses together into a personal narrative or story: What are your strengths? (What access to Power resources do you have?) What is your story? (How does all this fit together?)' Further reading The British Psychological Society: 'Power, Threat, Meaning Framework' The British Psychological Society: The Power Threat Meaning Framework: (2 page) Summary Boyle M. Johnstone L. A straight talking introduction to the Power threat meaning framework: A alternative to psychiatric Diagnosis. PCCS Books 2020.
  • Create New...