IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v19y2010i17-18p2590-2600.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation of the impact of the recommendations of the Chief Nursing Officer’s (England) Review of Mental Health Nursing in Mental Health Trusts and Universities in England: findings from stage one, an e‐survey

Author

Listed:
  • John Baker
  • John Playle
  • Pauline Nelson
  • Karina Lovell

Abstract

Objectives. To establish a national picture of the implementation of these recommendations in both trusts and higher education institutions. Background. The Chief Nursing Officer for England Review of Mental Health Nursing made 17 key recommendations to improve mental health nursing. Subsequent publications aimed to help implement these recommendations. Design. An e‐survey. Methods. The survey was based on the Chief Nursing Officer review recommendations and guidance. Participants: all relevant trusts who deliver mental health services (n = 68) and higher education institutions who deliver pre‐registration mental health nursing education (n = 50) in England. Results. A total of 42 trusts (63·6%) and 40 higher education institutions (80%) completed the survey. The survey indicates that the Chief Nursing Officer review has stimulated some activity in all organisations who responded. Eleven of the recommendations were ranked similarly by trusts and higher education institutions. There were statistically significant differences between trusts and higher education institution priorities in four areas, inpatient care, evidence‐based interventions, multidisciplinary team working and recruitment and retention. Conclusions. The findings of the survey demonstrate that all organisations have made some progress in the implementation of the Chief Nursing Officer recommendations. Trusts and higher education institutions broadly agree on the importance of each of the Chief Nursing Officer recommendations, with the exception of four items. A range of factors was identified by respondents that were perceived as facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the Chief Nursing Officer review. Relevance to clinical practice. This article contains findings that are highly relevant for current and future clinical practice in mental health. Despite some progress, clear differences between higher education institutions and trusts are apparent. It is important that these differing perspectives are acknowledged and resolved to improve healthcare provision. Both trusts and higher education institutions reported difficulty with engaging service users and carers. A range of factors are identified that act as facilitators and barriers to the implementation of healthcare policy.

Suggested Citation

  • John Baker & John Playle & Pauline Nelson & Karina Lovell, 2010. "An evaluation of the impact of the recommendations of the Chief Nursing Officer’s (England) Review of Mental Health Nursing in Mental Health Trusts and Universities in England: findings from stage one," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(17‐18), pages 2590-2600, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:17-18:p:2590-2600
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03105.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03105.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03105.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadine S. Koch & Jolly A.. Emrey, 2001. "The Internet and Opinion Measurement: Surveying Marginalized Populations," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 82(1), pages 131-138, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Divine Ikenwilo & Sebastian Heidenreich & Mandy Ryan & Colette Mankowski & Jameel Nazir & Verity Watson, 2018. "The Best of Both Worlds: An Example Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Men’s Preferences for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 55-67, February.
    2. Dewaele Alexis & Caen Maya & Buysse Ann, 2014. "Comparing Survey and Sampling Methods for Reaching Sexual Minority Individuals in Flanders," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 251-251, June.
    3. Chang, Tai-Wei, 2023. "An indispensable role in promoting the electric vehicle Industry: An empirical test to explore the integration framework of electric vehicle charger and electric vehicle purchase behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:19:y:2010:i:17-18:p:2590-2600. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.