Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.DesignA 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).SettingStage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK.ParticipantsAnyone 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 measuresDescriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsRecommendations 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.

The traditional approach to research ethics is to ensure that all ethical issues are adhered to through the scrutiny of research proposals by research ethics committees, themselves sitting within national research governance frameworks. The current approach implies that all potential ethical issues can be considered and mitigated prior to the research. This article is a perspective piece whereby we consider how this approach, on its own, is not enough to ensure ethical practice. We draw attention to the limitations of current ethical procedures in the inherent detachment between the researcher and research participants. We argue that applying a person-centred approach to research ethics allows for contextual and situational factors and places the relationship between research participants and researcher as central.

If you're looking to develop and improve your nursing, health or social care practice, either individually or as part of a team, the Practice Development Workbook for Nursing, Health and Social Care Teams offers a wide-ranging selection of activities, tools and resources covering vital aspects of practice development.  Written as a companion volume to the latest edition of the best-selling Practice Development in Nursing and Healthcare, this new resource grounds practice development in day-to-day nursing and health and social care through accessible, informative learning activities.  It also focuses on practical ways in which teams can make their workplace cultures more effective and person-centred, and enables practitioners to empower themselves to make compassionate care a fundamental part of effective health and social care systems. Key features: * Offers a full range of resources and tools to support all stages of learning and development towards person-centred practice, including learning activities, templates, posters, tips and hints, information sheets, and checklists. * Includes practical advice for teams to involve patients, clients and residents in the transformation of workplace cultures and bringing about sustainable change * Perfect for use both by individuals or by those working in group settings * Presents informative and accessible information through activities and key learning points rather than just theory * Fully linked to Practice Development in Nursing and Healthcare, second edition, but can also be used as a stand-alone resource * Includes access to a companion website featuring even more tools and resources, including: sample Powerpoint presentations, worksheets and reflection tools, questionnaires and checklists, evaluation tools, as well as a bonus chapter on 'Sharing and Celebrating'

My final editorial. It’s been an amazing opportunity and my sincere thanks go to Theresa Shaw and Kate Sanders at the Foundation of Nursing Studies and their board of trustees. Between us, we have turned our shared vision for the journal into a reality that is really starting to thrive ‘out there’. Not many people can say they’ve had a similar experience to mine, of being an academic editor launching a new journal, and one that sits outside a publishing house. The IPDJ’s unique funding and management arrangements have presented the editorial team with some unusual challenges; but the opportunities have been immense. Since its launch, and over the nine years of my stewardship as academic editor, the journal has established itself and grown into a reputable international open-access publication. Significantly, this has all been achieved in the most economical way, meaning our costs are far below those of many other established journals. Our metrics tell us readership is growing steadily, that the online viewing of articles is growing and that readers are also downloading more articles more frequently. We have seen more than a tenfold increase in figures as a whole. Kate and her colleagues on the editorial team, Debbie Warren and Jon Lalljee, deserve recognition for their contributions to making the IPDJ a success.

A lack of fidelity to Lean Six Sigma’s (LSS) philosophical roots can create division between person-centred approaches to transforming care experiences and services, and system wide quality improvement methods focused solely on efficiency and clinical outcomes. There is little research into, and a poor understanding of, the mechanisms and processes through which LSS education influences healthcare staffs’ person-centred practice. This realist inquiry asks ‘whether, to what extent and in what ways, LSS in healthcare contributes to person-centred care and cultures’. Realist review identified three potential Context, Mechanism, Outcome configurations (CMOcs) explaining how LSS influenced practice, relating to staff, patients, and organisational influences. Realist evaluation was used to explore the CMOc relating to staff, showing how they interacted with a LSS education Programme (the intervention) with CMOc adjudication by the research team and study participants to determine whether, to what extent, and in what ways it influenced person-centred cultures. Three more focused CMOcs emerged from the adjudication of the CMOc relating to staff, and these were aligned to previously identified synergies and divergences between participants’ LSS practice and person-centred cultures. This enabled us to understand the contribution of LSS to person-centred care and cultures that contribute to the evidence base on the study of quality improvement beyond intervention effectiveness alone.

Dehydration is prevalent in hospitalised older people and residents in care homes, and older people with dementia are particularly at risk. A literature review was conducted to determine the evidence-based interventions used to prevent and manage dehydration in older people with dementia. Three databases were searched for relevant literature: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and MEDLINE, alongside hand-searching. In-depth reading of the 12 studies included in this literature review was undertaken. Five themes were identified in relation to the hydration of older people: physical and social environment; staff communication strategies; access to drinks; drinking vessels; and individual preferences.The evidence suggests that dehydration in older people with dementia is an ongoing concern that needs to be addressed. There is evidence supporting the use of essential nursing interventions to improve hydration, such as coloured cups and verbal prompts, but less is known about the barriers preventing nurses from implementing these evidence-based interventions.

As the International Practice Development Journal comes to the end of its eighth year, the editorial team is already planning the issues for 2019. So we’re not standing still by any means. Of course, the IPDJ still has much to achieve as it moves towards becoming internationally recognised as a high-quality and high-profile open access publication for health and social care practitioners, educators and academics working in practice development and related fields. One significant step in the pipeline is the search for a new academic editor and I hope, by this time next year, the person we have chosen will be shadowing me and getting ready to lead the journal as we move towards a new decade. We have set out our commitment to publish and make freely accessible scholarly inquiry into practice development and related fields (such as person-centredness). We also want to publish material that challenges assumptions and provokes new visions and ideas, helping health and welfare workers engage in dialogue about the contribution practice development and related approaches can make. This is an area to which we really need to give greater attention, and anyone with methodological contributions is warmly invited to make a submission for 2019. In addition, we intentionally enable first-time and novice writers to publish their practice development work in a scholarly way by facilitating the formation of writing partnerships with more experienced writers and through coaching with writing. By doing this, we are contributing to ensuring future generations of nurses are equipped to publish their activities. Although, open access status is criticised by some in academia, we believe our status as such and our registration with the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) have a positive impact on our readership. For example, DOAJ registration requires that we use DOI numbers, which we believe is enhancing our accessibility. We can see from our website ‘metrics’ that readership numbers are increasing, as are downloads of IPDJ articles. Overall, we are pleased to see interest in the journal continuing to grow; the average number of articles downloaded is rising year on year, with 1,000 per month in 2018 – in our first year the monthly average was just 75.

Background: The Critical Ally and Critical Friend are two models in the early stages of developmental testing as part of a doctoral research programme. Together with the Critical Companionship model, they offer a theoretically coherent framework for developing expertise in the facilitation of learning about practice from within the workplace. The two new models are sequentially related models underpinned by key principles of practice development and critical social theory. Unlike Critical Companionship, the Critical Ally and Critical Friend models are aimed at novice and proficient practice developers respectively; we argue that, because of their design, they can offer stepping stones to Critical Companionship. Together, the three models offer a pathway for practice developers and practitioners to gain, in a systematic way over a longer timescale, a repertoire of facilitation skills and to build expertise. Aims: To describe the two new models and demonstrate their theoretical coherence with Critical Companionship. We also invite other practice developers and facilitators of workplace learning to debate the coherence of the two new models and the overall pathway, and to contribute to testing the models in a range of workplaces. Implications for practice: The two new models, when used in conjunction with the Critical Companionship model, offer a pathway for developing facilitation expertise within practice development The models offer a broad based introduction to learning in and from practice, which could be useful for preceptors, mentors, clinical supervisors and facilitators at all levels from novice to proficient As the three models offer a pathway, they could be useful as part of strategic workforce development, and learning and development planning The models offer a potential new midrange theory that can contribute to developing practice development knowledge