| Title |
Selecting, training and supervising nurses to treat depression in the medically ill: experience and recommendations from the SMaRT oncology collaborative care trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
General Hospital Psychiatry, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.06.014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marta Wanat, Jane Walker, Laura Hodges, Alison Richardson, Michael Sharpe |
| Abstract |
Collaborative care programs to treat comorbid depression in the medically ill often have general (nonpsychiatric) nurses care managers. In this paper, we aim to provide practical recommendations for their selection, training and supervision. Based on more than 10 years of experience of selecting, training and supervising general nurses to deliver a highly effective collaborative care programme called "Depression Care for People with Cancer," we describe the problems encountered and the solutions adopted to optimize the selection, training and supervision of nurse care managers. To select nurses for the role of care manager, we found that role plays enabled us to assess nurses' ability to interact with distressed patients and their capacity for self-reflection better than simple interviews. To train the nurses, we found that a structured program that mirrored the treatment manual and included simulated practice was best. To achieve effective supervision, we found that having sessions led by senior psychiatrists facilitated both constructive feedback to the nurses and effective review of the management of cases. We recommend that the selection, training and supervision of general nurses use the strategies outlined if they are to maximize the benefit that patients achieve from collaborative care programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#16,720,137
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from General Hospital Psychiatry
#1,069
of 1,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,328
of 278,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from General Hospital Psychiatry
#15
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.