Browsing by Person "Magowan, Ruth"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Developing philosophical and pedagogical principles for a pan-European person-centred curriculum framework
(Foundation of Nursing Studies, 2020-09-30) Dickson, Caroline; van Lieshout, Famke; Kmetec, Sergej; McCormack, Brendan; Skovdahl, Kirsti; Phelan, Amanda; Cook, Neal F.; Cardiff, Shaun; Brown, Donna; Lorber, Mateja; Magowan, Ruth; McCance, Tanya; Dewing, Jan; Štiglic, Gregor
Background: In the associated article in this special issue of the International Practice Development Journal, Phelan et al. (2020) offer an analysis of the global positioning of person-centredness from a strategic policy perspective. This second article, an international person-centred education curriculum development initiative, builds on that foundational work. It outlines the systematic, rigorous processes adopted by academics from five European countries to analyse stakeholder data, theoretically frame the data, and thereby identify philosophical and pedagogical principles to inform the development of person-centred curriculum frameworks.
Meeting Deaf patients' communication needs
(2014-12) Dickson, Megan; Magowan, Ruth
Effective communication between nurses and patients is a vital part of safe and effective nursing care. However, few health professionals receive training in how to communicate with Deaf people; as a result, attempts to communicate with Deaf patients is often inappropriate and undertaken without knowledge or understanding of their communication needs. This article examines the literature on ways in which Deaf patients experience communicating with, and receive care from, nurses.
Person-centered healthcare practice in a pandemic context: An exploration of people's experience of seeking healthcare support
(Frontiers, 2021-09-09) Curnow, Eleanor; Tyagi, Vaibhav; Salisbury, Lisa; Stuart, Kim; Melville-Jóhannesson, Barbara; Nicol, Kath; McCormack, Brendan; Dewing, Jan; Magowan, Ruth; Sagan, Olivia; Bulley, Catherine
Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic increased pressure upon healthcare resources resulting in compromised health services. Enforced national lockdown led to people being unable to access essential services in addition to limiting contact with social support networks. The novel coronavirus, and subsequent condition known as long covid were not well-understood and clinicians were not supported by existing guidelines or pathways. Our study explored people's experiences of healthcare during this period with a person-centered “lens.”
Review of developments in person-centred healthcare
(Foundation of Nursing Studies, 2020-09-30) Phelan, Amanda; McCormack, Brendan; Dewing, Jan; Brown, Donna; Cardiff, Shaun; Cook, Neal F.; Dickson, Caroline; Kmetec, Sergej; Lorber, Mateja; Magowan, Ruth; McCance, Tanya; Skovdahl, Kirsti; Štiglic, Gregor; van Lieshout, Famke
In recent years, there has been a shift in orientation towards person-centredness as part of a global move towards humanising and centralising the person within healthcare. Person-centredness, underpinned by robust philosophical and theoretical concepts, has an increasingly solid footprint in policy and practice, but research and education lag behind. This article considers the emergence of person-centredness, including person-centred care, and how it is positioned in healthcare policy around the world, while recognising a dominant philosophical positioning in Western philosophy, concepts and theories. Second, the evolution of person-centred healthcare over the past five years is reviewed. Published evidence of person-centred healthcare developments is drawn on, as well as information gathered from key stakeholders who engaged with the partner organisations in an Erasmus+ project to develop a European person-centred healthcare curriculum framework. Five themes are identified, which underpin the literature and stakeholder perspectives: Policy development for transformation Participatory strategies for public engagement Healthcare integration and coordination strategies Frameworks for practice Process and outcome measurement These themes reflect the World Health Organization’s global perspective on people-centred and integrated healthcare, and give some indication of development priorities as person-centred healthcare systems continue to be developed.
Support after COVID-19 study: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study to develop recommendations for practice
(BMJ Publishing Group, 2022-08-26) Bulley, Catherine; Tyagi, Vaibhav; Curnow, Eleanor; Nicol, Kath; Salisbury, Lisa; Stuart, Kim; McCormack, Brendan; Magowan, Ruth; Sagan, Olivia; Dewing, Jan
Objectives of study stage 1 were to: explore people’s experiences of illness due to COVID-19 while feeling socially isolated or socially isolating; identify perceptions of what would support recovery; and synthesise insights into recommendations for supporting people after COVID-19. Study stage 2 objectives were to engage stakeholders in evaluating these recommendations and analyse likely influences on access to the support identified. Design: A two-stage, multimethod cross-sectional study was conducted from a postpositivist perspective. Stage 1 included an international online survey of people’s experiences of illness, particularly COVID-19, in isolation (n=675 full responses). Stage 2 involved a further online survey (n=43), two tweetchats treated as large online focus groups (n=60 and n=27 people tweeting), two smaller focus groups (both n=4) and one interview (both using MS teams). Setting: Stage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK. Participants: Anyone aged 18+ and able to complete a survey in English could participate. Stage 2 included health professionals, advocates and people with lived experience. Main outcome measures: Descriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data. Results: Of those responding fully to stage 1 (mean age 44 years); 130 (19%) had experienced COVID-19 in isolation; 45 had recovered, taking a mean of 5.3 (range 1–54) weeks. 85 did not feel they had recovered; fatigue and varied ‘other’ symptoms were most prevalent and also had most substantial negative impacts. Our draft recommendations were highly supported by respondents to stage 2 and refined to produce final recommendations. Conclusions: Recommendations support access to progressive intensity and specialism of support, addressing access barriers that might inadvertently increase health inequalities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and learning are crucial, including the person with COVID-19 and/or Long Covid in the planning and decision making throughout.